Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 9, 2014 - 10:51am PT
|
Interesting analogy Bruce--remember that the Y2K bug was to a large extent a hoax promulgated by the media to generate buzz and by a some so-called experts who would charge a fortune to "solve the problem."
A very clear misrepresentation of the Y2K "bug."
The threat was real--large corporations didn't spend millions on the bug because of media hype.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
k-man, I typed my response based on my memory and without doing any research, but it turns out that, like climate change stuff, not everyone agrees with the scope of the Y2K "problem."
Wikepedia has an amusing entry; anyone interested can read it and/or whatever else they like and draw their own conclusions (except Bruce--he has to rely solely on the so-called "experts").
Here's the relevant part of the Wikipedia entry-seems to me that the "opposing view" clearly has the better of the argument and that's consistent with my memory of the time, but I imagine you'll disagree.
Cost[edit]
The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K is estimated at over US$300 billion ($411 billion today, once inflation is taken into account [40]).[41] IDC calculated that the U.S. spent an estimated $134 billion ($184 billion) preparing for Y2K, and another $13 billion ($18 billion) fixing problems in 2000 and 2001. Worldwide, $308 billion ($422 billion) was estimated to have been spent on Y2K remediation.[42] There are two ways to view the events of 2000 from the perspective of its aftermath:
Supporting view[edit]
This view holds that the vast majority of problems had been fixed correctly, and the money was well spent. The situation was essentially one of preemptive alarm. Those who hold this view claim that the lack of problems at the date change reflects the completeness of the project, and that many computer applications would not have continued to function into the 21st century without correction or remediation.
Expected problems that were not seen by small businesses and small organizations were in fact prevented by Y2K fixes embedded in routine updates to operating system and utility software that were applied several years before 31 December 1999.
The extent to which larger industry and government fixes averted issues that would have more significant impacts had they not been fixed, were typically not disclosed or widely reported.
It has also been suggested that on 11 September 2001, the New York infrastructure (including subways, phone service, and financial transactions) were able to continue operation because of the redundant networks established in the event of Y2K bug impact[43] and the contingency plans devised by companies.[44] The terrorist attacks and the following prolonged blackout to lower Manhattan had minimal effect on global banking systems.[citation needed] Backup systems were activated at various locations around the region, many of which had been established to deal with a possible complete failure of networks in the financial district on 31 December 1999.[45]
Opposing view[edit]
Others have claimed that there were no, or very few, critical problems to begin with, and that correcting the few minor mistakes as they occurred, the "fix on failure" approach, would have been the most efficient and cost-effective way to solve the problem. Editorial writing in The Wall Street Journal called Y2K an "end-of-the-world cult" and the "hoax of the century".[46] This opposing view was bolstered by a number of observations.
The lack of Y2K-related problems in schools, many of which undertook little or no remediation effort. By 1 September 1999, only 28% of U.S. schools had achieved compliance for mission critical systems, and a government report predicted that "Y2K failures could very well plague the computers used by schools to manage payrolls, student records, online curricula, and building safety systems".[47]
The lack of Y2K-related problems in an estimated 1.5 million small businesses that undertook no remediation effort. On 3 January 2000 (the first weekday of the year), the Small Business Administration received an estimated 40 calls from businesses with computer problems, similar to the average. None of the problems were critical.[48]
The lack of Y2K-related problems in countries such as Italy, which undertook a far more limited remediation effort than the United States.[citation needed] In a 22 October 1999 report, a US Senate Committee expressed concern about safe travel outside of the United States.[citation needed] The report stated that overseas public transit systems were considered vulnerable because many did not have an aggressive response plan in place for any problems. Internationally, the report singled out Italy, China and Russia as poorly prepared. The Australian government evacuated all but three embassy staff from Russia.[49] None of these countries experienced any Y2K problems regarded as worth reporting.[citation needed]
The absence of Y2K-related problems occurring before 1 January 2000, even though the 2000 financial year commenced in 1999 in many jurisdictions, and a wide range of forward-looking calculations involved dates in 2000 and later years. Estimates undertaken in the leadup to 2000 suggested that around 25% of all problems should have occurred before 2000.[50] Critics of large-scale remediation argued, during 1999, that the absence of significant problems, even in systems that had not been rendered compliant, suggested that the scale of the problem had been severely overestimated.[51]
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Malemute, maybe I don't "have a clue," maybe the Freakonomics guy Steven Levitt and the expert he relies upon don't either.
Now let's start on how much of a fraud Levitt is (he's done a good job of tricking Harvard and MIT and University of Chicago, but that just shows he's good at it).
We can repeat the story line of where I posted some stuff by Nassim Taleb that was skeptical of climate models and got a bunch of "what an idiot that guy is and what a super idiot I am for being duped." For the record, I wrote that I wan't necessarily convinced by Taleb that there's anything wrong with climate models; I just thought it was mildly interesting and people who read this thread may like to know what a prominent public intellectual had to say about one aspect of climate change studies!
Sheesh
http://freakonomics.com/2006/02/20/was-the-y2k-threat-real-imagined-or-invented/
In response to my post regarding false predictions not being properly punished, some blog readers took exception to my argument that the hysteria that surrounded Y2K was a false prophesy. Their argument is that all of the preparation leading up to Y2K averted what would have been a disaster.
That just doesn’t ring true to me. Was there not anyone, anywhere who either failed to properly prepare, or maybe happened to overlook some aspect of how Y2K might affect their systems? Did every small business and third world country catch every bug? Did anything go wrong as a result of Y2K? Did anyone ever test a system in advance of Y2K and find that had they not tested, something catastrophic would have happened?
Here is a good article from Larry Seltzer who knows much more than me about the subject and holds the same view.
My recollection is that programmers were getting paid far above standard wage rates due to the great demand for their services with Y2K. Could it be that there were strong incentives on their part to exaggerate the danger? Sounds logical.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Some-Perspective-5-Years-After-Y2K/
It was only in the wake of Jan. 1, 2000, when we all saw the lights still on, the planes still aloft and the computers still running that the rationalization went into high gear. The Y2K scare motivated people to improve their emergency preparedness. It awakened healthy skepticism in institutions like banks, governments and the computer industry. It created a new level of scrutiny in the development of software. (That last one is especially funny.) Ive seen people claim that it was Richard Clarke and his Y2K coordination work in the NSC that saved the world. It was clear that the emperor had no clothes, so the only thing left was to praise nudity.
You certainly couldnt justify all the money spent on the straightforward merits. Did all that remediation actually solve serious Y2K problems? If it did, why didnt the problems manifest themselves in serious ways in the unremediated third world? Either the problems were less frequent or less malignant than advertised. In either case, some famous consultants misled their clients.
Here's another one.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2881/was-all-that-money-spent-on-y2k-wasted
If you climate changers want to use Y2K as an example of where the "experts" saved society from tragedy that would otherwise have befallen us, and in a cost effective way that didn't at all improperly benefit the experts financially at the public expense . . .
Good luck with that!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
interesting how strong the desire to believe in a conspiracy theory is...
if we boiling this down to the essence, blahblah is saying that $422 billion was spent to fix a problem that was a hoax perpetrated on business by a conspiracy among the world's software programmers. This represents something like 1% of the total world GDP at that time, the growth rate was 3% or so, unadjusted (so more like 4% that year if there were no Y2K fix at the estimated costs?).
we can conclude that people engaged in running businesses are monumentally stupid.
that would be the other side of the "conspiracy" theory, a conspiracy of dunces?
personally, I'd like to believe that the programmers were so smart that they pulled it off, but I know that other explanation would be much more likely.
or, that the costs were overestimates, the mitigation successful and the effect of not acting somewhat less than expected...
but that wouldn't be interesting.
What this has to do with Climate Change is a stretch. Perhaps blahblah is offering it up as an existence proof for global conspiracies of technical people to hoax the poor, simple, ignorant business class out of their profits...
I'm sure he's serious... and if so, it would not be so far fetched that people could be so stupid.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
hey Blah - I threw that out there as bait as much as anything.
Good job Bruce, you got me!
But interestingly, you also indirectly got Malemute, Kman, and now Ed, who started arguing with me when I took the bait and noted that Y2K was a good example of so-called experts exploiting a real issue to enrich themselves at the public expense.
I was a little surprised by that and had to spend a few minutes of Googling to assure myself that my memory wasn't playing tricks on me; the conventional wisdom is indeed that Y2K is a good example of what can happen when "experts" run amok.
Maybe the conventional wisdom is somehow wrong (although neither K-man, Malemute, or Ed have presented anything even slightly compelling).
This is not to say that there wasn't some legitimate work to be done to address to the Y2K issue; in that sense, it's a pretty good analogy to climate change, where almost no one would argue that there should be no environmental legislation.
Ed and the gang: I am not simply asserting that I think that Y2K "remediation" was a colossal waste of money -- I've put up links from legitimate sources that say that and explain the basis for that view.
Please don't be silly and say that this is me, blahblah, who has constructed some sort of conspiracy theory myself. If you disagree with those sources, feel free to explain why or present your own sources, but the personal attacks against me are beyond silly and juvenile here. Having already been baited once on this by Bruce (who strangely seems to agree with me), I'll let the cites I've posted speak for themselves, and note that, at least as I write this, they stand utterly unrefuted.
What this has to do with Climate Change is a stretch. Perhaps blahblah is offering it up as an existence proof for global conspiracies of technical people to hoax the poor, simple, ignorant business class out of their profits...
I'm sure he's serious... and if so, it would not be so far fetched that people could be so stupid.
It's not exactly a "conspiracy" that I suspect, in the sense of group of super-villains meeting in a room to concoct evil plans. It's just an observation that people are opportunists, all life forms pretty much are, and they do what they can to make a buck!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I remember the Y2K model; it was a home plan I drew up in 1999. It didn't sell well then and the climate change baloney is not selling well now to the predominately skeptical public.
I here tell from a prominent scientist on this site that he cleansed the record after the embarassment of Ideological taint became apparent to all and even himself. No mind fellow traveler we're all in this together, warts and all.
On a happier note. We've added our first grandkid to the Sumner clan. A healthy 8lb 8oz boy. It was a dicey late term pregnancy complicated by a prolapsed umbilical cord which neccessitated an emergency c section. All turned out well however, thank the deity(s).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 9, 2014 - 11:34pm PT
|
k-man, I typed my response based on my memory and without doing any research, but it turns out that, like climate change stuff, not everyone agrees with the scope of the Y2K "problem."
blahblah, While the WSJ called Y2K a hoax, your quotation doesn't explain why Billions were spent on prevention. In hind-sight, yes, it seems like it might have been overblown. But the billions were not spent because of media hype, as you suggest.
If it were a hoax, who perpetrated it, and why? Certainly the media didn't gain anything from the billions, heck, they themselves probably spent a nice lunch on it themselves.
So your comparison of the Y2K bug with climate science is a pretty deflated argument.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 9, 2014 - 11:36pm PT
|
On a happier note. We've added our first grandkid to the Sumner clan.
Well I'll be darned. Congrats Rick.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 10, 2014 - 07:49am PT
|
Ya really zipped one across that time.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
I was a little surprised by that and had to spend a few minutes of Googling to assure myself that my memory wasn't playing tricks on me; the conventional wisdom is indeed that Y2K is a good example of what can happen when "experts" run amok.
no doubt you believe everything you read from a Google search... especially to assure yourself that your opinion is supported by the stuff you find on the web.
Once again, you are saying that the businesses of the world are run by people that are so stupid that they were taken in, and spent 1% of the world's economic output at that time to correct a software problem that wasn't a problem.
You do have some quantitative skill, don't you? Well, I know that fractions and percentages can present an overwhelming challenge to some...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
Ed, no, I like to think I'm skeptical of what I read on the Internet and more generally in life. Hence my interest in this thread!
But, for I hope the final time, let me point out that the view that the spending to solve the Y2K issue was out of proportion to the actual threat is not something I concocted on my own (how would I know?), but rather is the now-conventional view.
Address the points raised by my cites if you care to (including a link by perhaps the world's most famous popularizer of the science of economics as applied to everyday life and the expert that he relies upon), but there's no reason to make snide personal comments.
Your general argument that, in essence, big companies and the government wouldn't waste a lot of money because they're not run by idiots is duly noted.
It would be interesting to see what the other readers of this thread think of that one!
There are some obvious counterexamples of your theory that money spent by government and big business is well spent from a public benefit point of view. Start with the military-industrial complex, move on the "war on terror," then think about the recent financial debacle of the "Great Recession."
If you then still want to push your point that the money spent on Y2K was all well spent because government and big business would not have spent it otherwise, I think we're safely in "we'll have to agree to disagree" territory.
Quick edit, then I have to do some work:
Lots of posts of people arguing with me on this; still zero refutation of the cites I provided.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 11:28am PT
|
whether of not we "agree to disagree" doesn't make you argument correct.
still zero refutation of the cites I provided.
your position is irrefutable by construction. Your premise is that the technical people were incorrect. Starting from that premise, the opinion of technical people must be at least suspect, if not inadmissible in establishing that there was an important issue.
Therefore, only people who are not a part of that technical expertise area can have an opinion which can be viewed as trustworthy.
Given that logic, how can anyone hope to refute your argument?
Even you agree that that is somewhat flawed, so you admit expert narrative, but only those experts that support your suspicions. Since the only people who can criticize on a technical basis "your experts" are ones who disagree, they have been categorized as "untrustworthy" by you, they do not support your suspicion.
So of course you can make the claim that your suspicion has not been refuted, you don't accept the authority of any information that doesn't support your suspicion.
this is a way of engaging in an argument that you (and others) use to demonstrate that there are legitimate debates where there isn't... by making the views of small vocal minorities who are outside of the technical expertise community appear to have an equal weight in the discussion.
The response I would expect from you is that you are not surprised that I would think this way, after all, I am an "expert" and thus my "expert opinion," where it is in disagreement with yours, is fatally flawed and invalid.
I think that perhaps you should stick to your legal practice... and not worry so much that you can't bring a suit against all the experts of Y2K, or Climate Change, or any of the many things you hold to be hoaxes perpetrated by some "elite" class to separate you from your hard earned income.
Ionesco couldn't have conceived of a plot more absurd than this fashion that has taken over the political conversation.
I'm sure you don't even know where this "distrust of experts" mania originates from...
for Y2K you might start here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11999
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
|
Ed not only have you made some serious flaws in your analysis (my citations were to, among others, a well-credentialed economist and a computer expert--not sure who could better evaluate the cost/benefits surrounding the Y2K debacle), but you have also ignored the testimony of DMT, who was a professional in the computer industry at the relevant time and who testified as follows:
But no question whatsoever y2k was a gravy train boomtown rush / bust. Lots of unscrupulous people took advantage of public and private stupidity.
(I know he didn't really "testify," but it's more fun to write it that way.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
|
did you click on the National Academy report of the analysis of Y2K?
even DMT might learn something... were he to do it... but it also might conflict with his belief.
Like I expected, you have your experts that support your contention, but they are not necessarily expert in this issue. How do you decide what experts to use (now that you agree with DMT's expertise, I assume he is "your expert", unless, I guess, he disagrees with you, then he is suspect).
The point is you are unwilling to abandon your belief based on conflicting information from experts. Even if you believe in their expertise.
You might as well admit to that, it is fact borne out of the history of posts.
Your counter argument will be that I am susceptible to that also, but now there is no history (at least on this thread). I can interpret it for you (you have no other way of understanding lacking the expertise) but at least in science, one can be critical essentially because independent confirmation of the scientific conclusions is possible. Reading a paper and working through the results independently confirms the logic of the paper. Independent analysis of the data confirms the analysis results some one else does, better is to do a completely different experiment and come to the same conclusion. Performing an independent simulation and comparing the results and explaining the differences is another technique, all critical of each other, and independent of the reputation of the researchers.
I can do that in the case of climate in many instances, you cannot, so you have to trust others. You don't trust someone who does not hold your same views. Can you present a counterexample? I suspect that it hasn't even occurred to you to think that out.
The NAS report is an analysis of the Y2K problem, and the response, and is pertinent to the the climate issue because it is essentially a story of how risk is assessed and how we "buy down risk." Interestingly, one conclusion of the Y2K problem is that it was effectively addressed.
Your views may not be the same... but they are shaped by the opinions of others as you have no way of telling who is right and who is wrong, to you it is just a matter of deciding what you believe. If you believe in these vast conspiracies, that the experts are intentionally using their knowledge to perpetrate a hoax, you can certainly put together an "irrefutable" argument.
Your ability to do that might be a feature of the legal system, but it isn't in science.
But then, you wouldn't know that... maybe a Google search would help...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 10, 2014 - 03:11pm PT
|
Worth repeating:
this is a way of engaging in an argument that you (and others) use to demonstrate that there are legitimate debates where there isn't... by making the views of small vocal minorities who are outside of the technical expertise community appear to have an equal weight in the discussion.
Hey, I read a blog that said you are wrong! Stupid scientists ...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 11, 2014 - 09:17am PT
|
one of the interesting issues that is brought up time and again is the idea that experts aren't trustworthy, that there are incentives for them to collude in making fraudulent claims, and benefitting from the fraud.
the concept of independent reproducibility is foundational to the pursuit of science, that is, anyone should be able to reproduce the result of a scientific inquiry. Publication of the details of the inquiry is fundamental to this, it is the publication of the ideas, logic and techniques that provide the ability for others to reproduce the work.
"peer review" is often misunderstood as a way of catching incorrect papers, and sometimes this happens, but a more important role for peer review is to check to see that all the information exists in the paper to enable an independent review of the work.
but even if that doesn't happen completely, researchers "working through" a paper will often reveal gaps in the description. often, those researchers will communicate with the paper's corresponding author seeking more detail, or a "comment" might be published in the same journal questioning some aspect of the published paper.
occasionally this process of independently working through papers reveals the paper to be incorrect. Having found the errors, editors might followup and request a retraction. Errors are committed for all sorts of reasons, occasionally these are intentional, to claim an important result. It has always been odd to me that the intentional alteration, of fabrication of data or of some technique, would be used by scientists who know that important results are scrutinized by other scientists, and that science generally rewards activities that are critical of scientific results in general. You get big browny points for showing something is incorrect...
here is a web site you all might be interested in... following an OpEd piece in the NYTimes today:
http://retractionwatch.com
interestingly, where science applies to the justice system, such as DNA evidence, the "fraud" prosecutors perpetrate in achieving convictions is often revealed by independent checks. Science doesn't have an agenda in a legal trial, except that science is applied correctly.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to retract the execution of an innocent person. What is astounding is that there is no further consequence for such reckless abuse. It would be interesting if other fields of importance to human society had similar "watches"
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
Jul 12, 2014 - 07:41am PT
|
If climate change is real then why does it still get colder at night?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Jul 12, 2014 - 09:16am PT
|
Thanks for the weather reports, TGT.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|