So this is hardly unprecedented. :-)
Note for further information on a different subject: The surprising legacy of Y2K
My, my, my.
You're in my field of expertise, now. The 'Y2k computer crash' story was a hoax. Complete hoax. And was proven wrong. Completely.
But somehow, it is comforting to see you pushing that story too . . .
Count me as interested in seeing support for that. I will look at any resources you provide. If I am convinced, then I will cease thinking that Y2K was a problem which required addressing, and I won't ever post anything indicating that it WAS again.
From the same site that provided the link you noted, there is also this:
Excerpts:
"This project had a number of goals. First: to find out if Y2K was a success, or just hype. The answer seems to be yes and yes. The problem was very real and the consequences for doing nothing were huge. There were also news organizations, technology consultants, religious leaders, and the like, who spent lots of energy hyping the problem beyond reality, often for their own gains."
and
"The primary goal of those working on Y2K was to keep everything working. If on January 1, 2000, it looked like nothing happened, then their mission was accomplished. In the vast majority of cases, this is exactly what happened. ... And so we never noticed the programmers working through the night, the senators meeting with technology executives, the Federal Reserve inspectors combing through bank processes. Everyone did their job, and nearly on cue, the rest of us forgot they were there."
In thinking that Y2K was not a hoax, I am defining Y2K as a common software problem that needed to be fixed, or the computer system with the software problem might fail. The above paragraph says "the problem was very real" -- that is the problem that I am referring to. If the hoax you're referring to is the claims of disaster associated with this software problem, then I don't really have a problem with it being called a hoax.
I hope that's clear.