Two Hundred Billion Dollars

Twice the amount that DoctorEvil? was asking for. That's a lot of money.

Well it turns out that may not be the correct amount in fact - see http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/7125 where GaryNorth gets his millions and billions mixed up something rotten just to add to the problem.

But the real mystery is that such expenditure was justified on the basis that those companies and countries who chose not to spend in advance but to fix on failure were going to be in deep trouble.

So, where exactly are the examples of this globally on 7th January 2000? How long are we expected to wait to see these dire consequences?

Anyone feel that as software professionals we are not flavour of the new millennium with strange folk like politicians, CEOs and the general public as much as we deserve to be? Surely there can be nothing wrong with a 'discipline' responsible for a weeny bit of expenditure based on predictions that aren't entirely borne out by the facts? (Severe IronyWarning)

For a man with four intensive years of highly alarmist egg on his face, GaryNorth is asking some pretty good questions. See for example

Any answers from Wiki?

I happen to think it is because people put so much effort into it. I was there when some companies did their Y2K tests and found errors of various flavors. Those errors would not have gone away magically without the fixes. but we'll never know.

Excuse me, but the "we'll never know" line is just a trifle hasty isn't it? And when said with no hint of regret ... well if it was my 200 billion dollars (interesting concept) and this represented the majority view of the software industry globally I would even venture that this was just a shade irresponsible ...

See XpHundredBillionDollarChallenges

"people put so much effort into it"

The key question remains: are you saying that this great effort was distributed uniformly across the globe, across all systems, depending on the level of real risk to humanity (or at least current financial arrangements)?

If you're not, if there were in fact major differences in effort and expense between different countries and companies (as has been reported for many months) why isn't the positive or negative impact of these different levels already more visible?

well, I went to Africa and got all kinds of shots, but actually never got any diseases. What a waste of money - I mean I might have DIED if I hadn't taken those shots, but in this particular instance I didn't actually die, so gosh I could have saved the money. And I have paid auto insurance for YEARS without so much as an accident to justify it.

We don't take out insurance and do preventive maintenance because we know we're going to get hurt, but because we anticipate the cost of being wrong is much greater. all applies equally to Y2K. I am glad to have paid all that money and have no damage to report. No damage and a thinner wallet is a lot better than a thick wallet just prior to a catastrophe. Reminds me a lot of taking those shots.

Thanks, I accept some of the insurance analogy but I'll try to express my main question again.

Let's say that you went to Africa for a conference of one thousand people and that there were one thousand shots that everyone was told to take to avoid certain or highly probable disease, deformity or perhaps death, all of which would begin to occur within three minutes to ten years of starting your visit, they couldn't exactly say (!) You heroically take all the shots recommended but you later learn that some of your companions only took half the shots, some a quarter and quite a few had taken none. (They also lied quite a bit about it so you weren't absolutely sure...but anyway.) What you did know was that after seven days nobody had died, you had heard of nobody who had been seriously ill but there was one person who was known to have a bit of a cold.

What would you deduce about the original advice and the medical expertise and ethics of the people that gave it?

I would deduce that neither the people who gave the advice nor the people who did/didn't take the shots really knew what was happening, and each made their plans accordingly. I wouldn't question anyone's ethics.

Actually, the last time I went to Africa, my doctor said, "Oh you won't need malaria tablets there at that time, but let's call the Tropical Medicine Hot Line to be sure." They recommended, "Absolutely do take the malaria tablets." The doctor said, "That's weird, but that's what they said. By the way these tablets can cause you to hallucinate, so stop taking them if you start hallucinating - dealing with the malaria after the fact is better than 8 weeks of hallucinating." I discussed with a few more people, and chose not to take any malaria tablets at all. When I got there, the people told me - oh we don't need malaria pills here, especially not at this time of year!

Now why would the Tropical Medicine Hot Line give that advice? I don't assume faulty ethics on their part. I assume they are more afraid of lawsuits, and figure 1,000 people taking these crazy pills are better than one person not taking them and actually catching malaria, worse, possibly not recognizing it in time and dying.

So I think the comparison situation you set up compares quite nicely so far.

Thanks ... this means that I certainly don't have the faintest clue what is going on!

Now GaryNorth is advocating public thanks to God for the world's y2k programmers - see "Earthen Dam" (http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/7133) which does has some real value as an analogy in my view. I'm not ashamed to say a loud amen to that thanksgiving, even as I try to learn the big lessons from this one, just as EdYourdon is trying to do - see http://www.yourdon.com. --RichardDrake

Worries about liability and opportunistic upgrades may have been a large part of the Y2K "price":

EditText of this page (last edited June 12, 2004) or FindPage with title or text search