= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on You'll die if you do that - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (67)
For example, the Y2K bug.
This sort of thing is common. The smoke detector principle explains why.
There's a parable about issuing excessive false warnings: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
How does the 'Y2k bug' fall under this category? ISTM that if a lot of work had not been done, many important computer systems would have crashed / bugged out / lost data.
Or are you referring to the folks who thought it would entail the end of the world?
$308 billion is pretty widely regarded as an over-spend on a problem that fizzled out.
According to the cite a Wall Street Journal editorial called the Y2K bug an "end-of-the-world cult" and the "hoax of the century".
It's really hard to tell whether money spent on prevention was worthwhile, after the fact. We would certainly be complaining if we'd spent $308 billion and everything did crash.
The Wall Street Journal editorial would be more impressive to me if it wasn't written in 2003. If it's so bloody obvious to them, why wasn't that editorial written in 1996?
The Y2K problem might have been solved in a more cost-effective manner if folks just fixed things as they broke, but lots of chaos would have ensued in the mean time. It's not like it was a non-problem. More like noticing you're spending more than you optimally should on car insurance.