• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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.