this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
287 points (98.0% liked)

News

23361 readers
3151 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure, but even the worst Y2K effects wouldn't have had what lots of people were worried about, which was basically the apocalypse.

People who really should have known better were telling me that Y2K would launch the missiles in the silos.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago

We knew. However we knew there would be problems so we emphasized extremely unlikely scenarios to get the budgets to prevent the really annoying shit that might've happened.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We rarely disagree, but I’m gonna pull the “I work in the industry” card on you. A lot of hardworking people prevented bad things from happening whether big or small. We only look back at it as overblown because of them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Are you really going to claim that we would have had a global thermonuclear armageddon if Y2K mitigation was a failure?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're focusing on the extreme unrealistic end of what people were worried about with Y2K, but the realistic range of concerns got really high up there too. There were realistic concerns about national power grids going offline and not being easily fixable, for example.

The huge amount of work and worry that went into Y2K was entirely justified, and trying to blow it off as "people were worried about nuclear armageddon, weren't they silly" is misrepresenting the seriousness of the situation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I literally said in my first comment:

The good part is that the harm was mitigated for the most part through due diligence of IT workers.

What more should I have said?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not what more you should have said, but what less. It's the "people were worried about nuclear armageddon" thing that's the problem here. You're making it look like the concerns about Y2K were overblown and silly.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Well you're welcome to think that, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what people were actually worried about rather than what the person claimed people were worried about.

I literally quoted what I was responding to, so I have no idea why you're taking that away from what I said that I was suggesting Y2K wasn't a big deal when I wasn't even discussing the reality of the situation.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No. I'm saying that something like today would have happened only it would have been much worse in that it couldn't be fixed in the space of hours / days.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Sure, but that's not what people were worrying about at the time, which was my point.