Sure, but for people who don't really remember that period of time it's important to note that the irresponsible hysteria isn't exaggerated in hindsight either There really was a major upsurge in interest in prepper communities due to Y2K
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @adrienneleigh @arthur_affect
Yup. Some time after most of the code had been fixed, senior management started reading doomladen articles about Y2K and started demanding more work, more evidence of busyness on something already addressed by then.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Oh, and there was not a peep out of anyone on March 1 2000. We fixed code for that as well (think about it...) but there was no news-cycle induced crisis about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
You got me. What was the issue with March 1, 2000? FWIW, my first Y2K project was in 1983 working for the Australian Dept of Soc Sec. Family Allowance needed to be paid to children born after 31/12/1983 until their 16th birthday and the review date couldn’t be in the past.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @adrienneleigh @fatoldduffer and
Wasn’t it actually the leap year that kept the usual rule (as opposed to 1900 and 2100)? So many systems could be set up for a leap year every four years and will be wrong in 2100...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @davidmholtom @adrienneleigh and
I’ve found (in non-statistical samples talking to just-graduated IT people) that all know the 4 year rule, many know the 100 year rule and almost no one knows the 1000 year rule (or is it 2000? Can’t recall) It’s part of my lesson of ‘never write your own date library’
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @davidmholtom @SQLintheWild and
Yeah that's an interesting one because 2000 is the "normal leap year" according to the rules of the Julian calendar and 1900 was not according to the special rule added in the Gregorian calendar So the dumbest systems were already prepared for 2/29/00
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It's only the ones that tried to be a little too smart but not smart enough that had issues
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @davidmholtom and
Like me when I wrote that tweet. I was thinking that 2000 was meant not to be a leap year despite being divisible by 4. So it was on Feb 29 that there was not a peep from anyone about possible issues then.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.