Arthur Olson wrote: > With a New Year looming, an NPR Y2K review. > https://www.npr.org/2024/12/28/nx-s1-5116271/y2k-year-2000-preparations
The myth that the Y2K problem was overblown or a fantasy, or somehow just “resolved itself,” has only gained traction in the past quarter century. It really did take significant developer effort to prevent major problems in a wide variety of systems. CNN had an excellent article about this some years ago, but the lesson is quickly being forgotten. The only aspect of Y2K that was overblown (other than scare stories, like airplanes falling out of the sky) was the surge in Y2K certifications and liability statements, even for software that had nothing to do with dates—a novel opportunity for attorneys to get rich. Brian Inglis wrote: > Could we please all make a New Year's resolution to stop people from > reviving two digit year formats that are starting to reappear, making > it impossible to figure out some intended dates Yes. This. Unfortunately, because humans can usually figure out most dates with two-digit years, and because many of those humans no longer believe Y2K was a real problem, persuading the public to give up two-digit years in computer usage will be a challenge. Since the actual Y2K software problem, being related to two-digit years, was really about the change in century and not the millennium, we (or our progeny) are well on our way to repeating it 75 years from now. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
