I'll go to bat for Pyun's original "Captain America" cut being better than, hm, I dunno... how about 2003's "Daredevil"? Definitely down for a longer cut.
Y2K didn't happen because tens of thousands of programmers worked tirelessly to update systems across the world to make sure the bug was patched before 1/1/2000. Perhaps the panic was a little overblown, I don't think it would have been the end of the world, but there absolutely would have been massive system failures had the issue not been addressed. In many ways the panic helped create an urgency to address the issue. But it's also a boy who cried wolf thing. Most people just heard the panic and then saw nothing happen, without realizing the work that went into achieving that scenario.
Thanks for the link! I know that bugs actually existed and there was plenty of work done to patch them. But in my mind, there's little doubt that the mass disasters predicted were a form of threat inflation and journalistic sensationalism.
Notably, despite there being computer issues, the idea of Y2K causing a secular apocalypse wasn't really a thing outside the US and UK, at least in my experience. Other countries that took no real prevention or preparation efforts didn't suffer catastrophic disasters. Eg. in Russia, there was pretty much nobody talking about it. And though there reportedly were some computer issues that occurred in places, they were quickly addressed afterwards. Same with Italy and South Korea.
The article I linked, imo, does a good job of debunking the sources underlying the mass disaster claims. But again, it's ultimately a matter of opinion.
I'll go to bat for Pyun's original "Captain America" cut being better than, hm, I dunno... how about 2003's "Daredevil"? Definitely down for a longer cut.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
I like Daredevil. That movie was underrated, and had the director's cut been released in theaters, I think its reputation would've been better.
But yeah, I'm too also down for a proper Pyun cut of 1990's Cap.
Y2K didn't happen because tens of thousands of programmers worked tirelessly to update systems across the world to make sure the bug was patched before 1/1/2000. Perhaps the panic was a little overblown, I don't think it would have been the end of the world, but there absolutely would have been massive system failures had the issue not been addressed. In many ways the panic helped create an urgency to address the issue. But it's also a boy who cried wolf thing. Most people just heard the panic and then saw nothing happen, without realizing the work that went into achieving that scenario.
Here's a pretty cool Reddit thread about the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/s/ol8HSG45LL
Thanks for the link! I know that bugs actually existed and there was plenty of work done to patch them. But in my mind, there's little doubt that the mass disasters predicted were a form of threat inflation and journalistic sensationalism.
Notably, despite there being computer issues, the idea of Y2K causing a secular apocalypse wasn't really a thing outside the US and UK, at least in my experience. Other countries that took no real prevention or preparation efforts didn't suffer catastrophic disasters. Eg. in Russia, there was pretty much nobody talking about it. And though there reportedly were some computer issues that occurred in places, they were quickly addressed afterwards. Same with Italy and South Korea.
The article I linked, imo, does a good job of debunking the sources underlying the mass disaster claims. But again, it's ultimately a matter of opinion.