You just gave a great and far-reaching example yourself - you can't discount this or exempt this reason, because it's prevalent:

"...So, please, give at least one example that isn't due to "the hardware I have doesn't have a linux driver because the vendor couldn't be bothered, nor do they provide sufficient information to allow developers/contributors to write a driver" (the only common problem these days, but avoidable by choosing better hardware)..."

"Choosing better hardware"? You can blame vendors if you want, but people don't care who's fault it is, they simply want painless access to apps and internet.

Katherine Kostereva is sounding like the Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) of the software dev field.

Say enough right-sounding things in a smart-sounding way to get enough VC capital to ensure a golden parachute when things inevitably fall apart. And stay out of court on the way down.

"... It allows users to build apps and processes in a visual integrated development environment with drag and drop features..."

I remember Visual Basic being described this way 30 years ago! "No code" became "Low code" became "Crap code."

This analogy isn't fully formed - the *copy* would be fully unaware of the shell switch, as would everyone it encountered for the rest of it's life. But 'you' would be as dead as if someone just killed you with a shot to the head. You would go into the transporter, looking forward to seeing the green chick on the surface of that planet, and then blackness, nothing thereafter. The copy would appear on the planet having no idea it wasn't you, but 'you' would be dead. There would be no continuity of consciousnesses based on the original premise.

It has nothing to do with the question of 'soul', and the original premise says nothing about that.

Here, try this: If the transporter was able to scan and make an exact copy of you, down to the particle quantum state at the time of scanning, without destroying the original so that there were two *exact* copies - the 'copy' would have all your memories and would undoubtedly think it *was you - but you wouldn't be seeing the world through two sets of eyes, feeling 'present' in two bodies at the same time. You would see an exact copy of yourself who claimed to be you and the copy would see the same thing.

Now, if the process made this copy but destroyed the original, the 'copy' consciousness would be all that's left. You, the original version, would be as dead as if someone blew your head off in the transporter room. You'd just go dark, forever. Your copy would live your life and no-one it encountered would be able to tell any difference between it and you.

Both copies would have consciousness, but it wouldn't be the same consciousness. This what the original premise was getting at.

No one disputes this, in fact this article makes it even more apparent. What they accomplished (and relied on while hurtling through space) is remarkable. This article and ones like it highlight that fact, not take away from it.

fixed it for you.

I agree. In fact the dire predictions we saw back then for 'Y2k' sounded a lot more like what an EMP hit would do vs a date-windowing error.

I made that very point to Ed Yourdon in one of his many forums back then - that the only thing that could really cause his 'NY becomes Beirut' prediction would be something like an EMP, and his little forum followers got very mad and called me a "Polyanna". The faithful were so devoted to their cause ;)

Airplanes were never going to fall from the sky.

Payroll and benefits headaches can be a huge issue internally to a company, but that would have been the worst of it had remediation not happened at the scale it did.

It would have been a bad couple of months for folks like us, but it wouldn't have been this silly mad-max world so many hucksters were trying to scare you about so they could sell their books and seminars. (I worked on Y2K from 1997-2000)

Except it's not stupid, it's mostly accurate.

All computer systems would not have 'failed on the same day,' a percentage of them would have had date-related errors. Most of those would have continued working just fine after this 'failure'. Only a very small percentage of those would have shown what we'd call complete failure, and a small percentage of that % would have been be noticeable in a way that would cause external issues or cause other cascading problems with related services.

There was a dumb, frantic "all systems will fail at once!!" myth going around that fed into the apocalyptic fantasies of some people. Truth is, if *nothing* had been re-mediated beforehand, we'd have been looking at a couple very annoying months of post-fail remediation. No one would freeze or starve, no runs on banks, no mad-max world would have emerged.

Disclaimer: worked on 'y2k' for a mid-sized financial firm and a gigantic health care company from 1997-2000.

.

.. aircraft carriers == aircraft carrier groups (meaning ACs and the supporting cast of destroyer/cruisers/support vessels in each carrier group)

This relies on an idiotic variation of the Y2K spook-stories from 20 years ago. A massive EMP would not result in a 90% casualty rate, would not result in mass-cannibalism (lol), and would not mean that you, rally2xs, would command a harem of rapt, willing virgins eager to trim your neck-beard in exchange for the safety only you could bring them. (just continuing into the unspoken part of your fantasy there.)

Also, there is no 'tin-pot' dictator that would be able to procure a weapon + delivery system capable of delivering the megatons needed over Kansas, and any actual government that could do something close to that *wouldn't - because a massive reduction in defense spending doesn't mean we're willing lambs. We'd still have nukes, more and more accurate, deliverable nukes than anyone else. "Overwhelming" in a deterrence sense really just means three aircraft carriers, 20 nuclear subs, and 1/10th of our existing missile silos, along with most of our European-based forces and equipment.

" They will be the Morlocks in a world of Eloi."

So, no different than now then

You might be thinking of the short period of time between when the internet took off and cell phones took off - so, say, 1997 through 2007. Prior to the mid 90s, a smaller % of overall kids knew what a 'file' was than today.

So what should we call that magical era, 1997 - 2007, when kids *had to lean MS word, or *had to learn Linux? The MP era? (Millennial Puberty?)

No - there were computer industry professionals freaking out. I know, I worked with some of them and was occasionally dragged into âdebateâ(TM) with them. It was a form of hysteria among some people who should have known better.

Coastal flooding is a very real long-term possibility - but is one of the worse possible effects of climate change, and doesnâ(TM)t come close to causing human extinction as described in the linked article.