• CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      I want it on the Challenger’s external fuel tank to save the lives of seven people.

    • ghost@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Not sure if this is sarcasm, but I’ll answer just in case!

      It’s referring to 1999. The Y2K scare.

        • jaybone@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Did he manage to convert it back into cash and put it back in the bank without losing too much in the process?

          Aside from the value fluctuation, the conversion itself must cost a decent percent.

          • Berengaria_of_Navarre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            I have absolutely no idea. The guy wasn’t a close friend or anything. But you have to bare in mind that a considerable chunk of the population thought that every computer in the world was just going to stop working and all financial data was going to cease to exist. And if you consider that position, then 80% of something is worth a hell of a lot more than 100% of nothing.

        • astropenguin5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          Tbf, if it weren’t for the work of thousands of software engineers and the like it would have been quite bad actually.

        • kibiz0r@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox

          The preparedness paradox is the proposition that if a society or individual acts effectively to mitigate a potential disaster such as a pandemicnatural disaster or other catastrophe so that it causes less harm, the avoided danger will be perceived as having been much less serious because of the limited damage actually caused. The paradox is the incorrect perception that there had been no need for careful preparation as there was little harm, although in reality the limitation of the harm was due to preparation.

          Historical perspective can also contribute to the preparedness paradox. From the point of view of historians after the Year 2000 problem, the preventative action taken has been described as an “overreaction”, instead of a successful effort to prepare for an upcoming problem.