Ironically, the GST was a big reason Australian businesses were well prepared for Y2K. Small business people had to get their tech gear into gear for the GST and so those aging computer systems were duly phased out.

*MOST* individuals were doing plenty in fact. https://twitter.com/TheKouk/status/1211125215666700289

Indeed the seriousness of Y2K was known for a long time and didn't just begin in 1997. A decade of preparation was in play to make sure there would be no drama. https://twitter.com/NewtonMark/status/1211125733008916481

Banks were well onto it. They don't like to lose track of numbers and there was tonnes of legacy applications running behind the scenes. So they upgraded and rationalised a lot of systems that were in need of an upgrade anyway.

Aircraft manufacturers took a cautious approach and did their job. Nobody flying on airlines would have *seen* this work being done. No customers at the bank queue. But it was being done.

The upgrades to many computer systems and applications were simply good business. Upgrading your company books to the latest version of MYOB for example.

It's a similar argument to climate change...

"What if we clean up the planet and make the world better for NO REASON?"

In this instance I offer a qualified opinion on Y2K. I was a security consultant and project manager for a consulting IT company at the time. Our clients included govt agencies, banks, and multi-national traders. I also helped the MIL get GST and Y2K ready for her shop in Wang.

The major flaw with the original article is that it presents a straw-man argument. It misrepresents what the Y2K threat was, and then claims is was entire bollocks. Important to recognise the difference between the media hype and technical challenges. The writer does not.

The major danger of this kind of article is that it lays down a template for ignoring climate change. Kouk even used the word Hoax, which is frankly as reckless as suggesting the anti-vaxxers have any science to back up their madness.

Yes a bunch of IT companies did very nicely from selling new computers and new software in the lead up to Y2K. It brought forward budgets mostly, meaning spending after Y2K slumped again. None of this means the work wasn't needed.

Let's look at this piece of advice in the story. It's plain wrong.

When a legacy system fails then the other application tiers that rely on that data can no longer do their job. eg: what happens when bank transactions are lost when the nightly reconciliation runs?

Essentially, the bigger the business the bigger the risk. If you run a mail-order business from home then Y2K is potentially a hassle when tax time comes. If you're MYERS then the scale of inconvenience is significantly greater.

Here's another part of the story that is dead wrong.

The writer essentially decided before Y2K that it was all hype and has returned in 2017 to tell us he was right. His assertion is that there was no big dramas because it was a hoax, instead of considering it has been fixed.

Y2K wasn't such a big deal because it turns out having a decade to prepare, a clear deadline to work against and very clear financial incentives to get shit done leads to a pretty solid outcome.

It's not rocket science. Even an economist should get it.

So, trust the experts. Don't trust the internet. Our media is based on click-bait, science is based on evidence. Know the difference.

When you board a flight you trust the pilot is more trained than you are to fly the aircraft. Same goes for vaccines, climate... and Y2K.