Funding will be allocated to a new y2038 team that will likely require double the budget.
Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even the most bureaucratic corporation stopped working on the Y2K bug 17 years ago. Source?
I presume the source is that the year 2000 happened 17 years ago?
You'd think, but I worked at a bank in the early 2000s. Some companies got lazy and shifted the problem forward a few decades rather than actually fixing the problem.
Y2K is still an issue in some places. Without knowing more, it's possible that this could be a really bad move. Or maybe it's fine. It depends on the state of their code, which I'm not familiar with.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#13Really tackling the important decisions.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume the source is that the year 2000 happened 17 years ago?
You'd think, but I worked at a bank in the early 2000s. Some companies got lazy and shifted the problem forward a few decades rather than actually fixing the problem. Y2K is still an issue in some places. Without knowing more, it's possible that this could be a really bad move. Or maybe it's fine. It depends on the state of their code, which I'm not familiar with.
How would you "shift the problem" in this case?
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#15Funding will be allocated to a new y2038 team that will likely require double the budget.
I was just going to say, if they think 2000 was a problem they are in for a surprise soon.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#16I wonder how many "specialists" this eliminated?
I'm not sure it will. From the article:
>The agency didn’t provide an estimate of how much time is currently spent on Y2K paperwork, but Linda Springer, an OMB senior adviser, acknowledged that it isn’t a lot since those requirements are already often ignored in practice.
If this is the case, then the move to remove the Y2K regulations likely won't cause much of a dent. The other regulations might have an effect, however.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#17>Seven of the more than 50 paperwork requirements the White House eliminated on Thursday dealt with the Y2K bug, according to a memo OMB released. Officials at the agency estimate the changes could save tens of thousands of man-hours across the federal government. >“Many agencies have forgotten how to deregulate,” he said. “It’s been so long since somebody asked them to look backwards.” This is why it's generally a b…
Large corporations are just as bad at "deregulating"
It's human nature. Nobody wants to be the one to remove a test case, procedure or process. If something goes bad shortly afterwards guess who will be to blame?
Even in software, I've seen countless man hours updating and fixing tests that were little more than "is this code what I just wrote" and many of which weren't even testing the code that was going to production.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think, but I worked at a bank in the early 2000s. Some companies got lazy and shifted the problem forward a few decades rather than actually fixing the problem. Y2K is still an issue in some places. Without knowing more, it's possible that this could be a really bad move. Or maybe it's fine. It depends on the state of their code, which I'm not familiar with.
How would you "shift the problem" in this case?
Instead of blindly assuming those two missing digits are 19, make the assumption that if they're less than 50, it's 20, and if it's greater than 50, it's 19.
2050 (or whatever cutoff they're using) will suck (again) if that was their solution.
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you "shift the problem" in this case?
Instead of blindly assuming those two missing digits are 19, make the assumption that if they're less than 50, it's 20, and if it's greater than 50, it's 19. 2050 (or whatever cutoff they're using) will suck (again) if that was their solution.
If that's the solution, it seems like you can just make a code change every 50/100 years or so to increment the assumed century, and then this fix can work indefinitely for fairly low maintenance cost
Re: Trump Orders Government to Stop Work on Y2K Bug
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of blindly assuming those two missing digits are 19, make the assumption that if they're less than 50, it's 20, and if it's greater than 50, it's 19. 2050 (or whatever cutoff they're using) will suck (again) if that was their solution.
If that's the solution, it seems like you can just make a code change every 50/100 years or so to increment the assumed century, and then this fix can work indefinitely for fairly low maintenance cost
I would be happy if my code only had a bug every 50 years.