Find the story about this chart here.
When I saw it, I thought, that looks like a lot of the charts I did way back when I ran a series of high-level USG workshops at the Naval War College (and elsewhere, like WTC1) for the DoD.
The seriously unknown threshold on coronavirus, per the chart, is any nation's healthcare system capacity - a line drawn differently everywhere you go.
六毫秒加速器App-六毫秒加速器下载 1.0.1 安卓版-新云软件园:2021-6-12 · 六毫秒加速器 1.0.1 安卓版 海外党的网络加速应用 授权方式：免费软件 软件类型：国产软件 软件大小： 11.47 MB 推荐星级： 软件来源：成都俊云科技有限公司 更新时间：2021-06-12 16:23
And you really get the feeling that POTUS has largely lost control of the situation with coronavirus.
But here's probably the closest match to the coronavirus scenario slide above. It's the one I drew to explore the US scenario, so same basic intent:
But here's my favorite slide to revist from all this modeling, or the one that explores the cast of characters and behaviors we can meet across this event's unfolding (my favorite being "islanding," which we're starting to see already):
V. The Scenario Dynamics Grid
Creating a Composite, "Black Box" Scenario
【安卓版】路由插件加速&Switch游戏下载加速功能上线！ - QQ:2021-1-17 · 亲爱的用户， 腾讯加速器移动版现已支持 路由插件加速 & Switch游戏下载加速，扫描下方二维码下载腾讯加速器即可限时免费体验！！（仅限安卓） 操作指引： 1）路由插件加速 扫码下载并启动加速器后，在App中点击个人中心-主机路由加速，即可体验加速功能；
When we say "composite," we mean a single scenario that posits Y2K as both substantial and relatively drawn out. We won't offer any more detailed parameters than that, because we're not interested in debating those fine points that we can't really predict, but rather concentrate our analysis on the scenario dynamics we feel confident would appear in a reasonably stressing scenario. Having said that, we need to stress that this composite scenario is simultaneously about all countries and no one country in particular, meaning we strive for relatively generic content. Obviously, being Americans, our cultural biases will show through, but since we're writing first and foremost for U.S. decision makers, that's not the worst sin we could commit here.
By "composite" we also mean that no one should view this compilation of scenario dynamics as an all-or-nothing prediction (i.e., either we're right or we're wrong), for we don't think Y2K will go down exactly and completely like our scenario anywhere in the world. However, we do believe that many if not most of these dynamics will appear in an country suffering a dramatic Y2K experience, and we think that all of these dynamics will appear in some countries in various subsets and combinations. In short, this composite scenario should be viewed as a smorgasbord--i.e., all of these items will be laid out on the Y2K table, but not every guest will partake of every dish.
Breaking Down the M Curve Into a Six-Phase Composite Scenario
Slide 23 below breaks down the M Curve into six separate phases along a composite stressing Y2K scenario. We emphasize stressing because, if Y2K turned out to be a complete dud, then our M Curve of Influence would immediately go from being a Bactrian to a dromedary, or from a "two-hump" to a "one-hump camel."
As you view Slide 23 and read the explanation below, please keep in mind that the M Curve does not represent the course of Y2K failure rates, but only our sense of the peaks and valleys of Opinion Leaders' capacity to influence social responses to such failures.
Slide 23: The Six Phases of the Composite Y2K Event Scenario--Arrayed Against the M Curve of Influence
We explain the six separate phases as follows:
Mania refers to the phase during which public awareness, anxiety, and preparation for Y2K accelerates dramatically. For most countries, this will be across the summer and/or fall of 1999, with the "size" of the mania growing in direct relationship with the lateness of its onset (meaning the later in the year it starts, the more profound it will be). For the U.S., for example, we'd predict the Mania Phase to really kick in come Labor Day (i.e., end of summer and beginning of fall, when thoughts turn to preparing for the winter), but for a country like Russia, probably not until November.
In general, a good rule on start dates would seem to be: the more "crises" a country has on its plate, the later will be the start of the Mania Phase. Of course, it there's enough crises a country may well skip the entire concept for all the obvious reasons, but that would clearly be a special case outside of our generic model. One key assumption of this phase is that enough "evidence" (a very slippery concept here) surfaces by this time that says Y2K may well be significant and/or sufficient "public outcry" or "alarm" is orchestrated by Opinion Leaders (whether they come from officialdom or the public itself) to fuel the Mania in the absence of such "evidence."
There are probably several factors that will determine the intensity of the Mania phase. The first is the degree of obfuscation or denial associated with the Public Transcript. This can have two affects on the resulting mania:
- In cases where there is significant obfuscation/denial associated with the Public Transcript, once the Private Transcript (perceived truth) is revealed, there is likely to be a very large delta between the public and private positions (i.e., between what I’m told and what I see). The degree of discontinuity between the two positions is likely to be one of the primary determinants of mania intensity.
- The greater the obfuscation in the Public Transcript, the more evidence to the contrary (Private Transcript) will have to emerge before the public script is rejected by the masses. This might very well delay the emergence of the widespread concern until very late in the game.
腾讯手游加速器app_腾讯手游加速器手机版下载安装 - 其它 ...:2021-6-8 · 关键字：腾讯手游加速器,腾讯手游加速器安卓 版,腾讯手游加速器app下载,加速器 软件截图 软件资讯 2021年5月第二批国产游戏版号出炉 Switch游戏和PS4游戏各2款过审 据新京报报道，国家新闻出版广电总局官网显示，共有54款国产游戏获得游戏版号 ...
六毫秒加速器App-六毫秒加速器下载 1.0.1 安卓版-新云软件园:2021-6-12 · 六毫秒加速器 1.0.1 安卓版 海外党的网络加速应用 授权方式：免费软件 软件类型：国产软件 软件大小： 11.47 MB 推荐星级： 软件来源：成都俊云科技有限公司 更新时间：2021-06-12 16:23
Ultimately, frequent communication between the leader and the led, along with the most transparent possible information on Y2K preparations, seem to provide the best opportunity to mitigate the Mania.
Countdown refers to last few weeks and days of 1999, when individual and group preparation for the Y2K and associated Millennial Date Change Event takes on a life of its own, meaning the simultaneous actions of a substantial portion of the populace rapidly propels Y2K up to the level of a social phenomenon no longer easily made subject to any organizational control--private or public. On the face of it, that sounds pretty scary, but depending on the society and culture, it need not be.
Much will depend on the individual's sense of vulnerability in the face of a potentially destabilizing event, and that sense of vulnerability will depend proximately on his or her sense of achieved preparations but ultimately on his or her expectation of the event ahead. Preparations alone are unlikely to reduce uncertainty, thus the previously shaped expectations of the public at large will loom large at this point. But like riders traversing the first great drop of a roller coaster ride, few minds are likely to be changed in transit. Most people will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to further entreaties or advice, as they steel themselves for the remainder of the "ride."
Onset refers to probably no more than the first week of January 2000, but is primarily concentrated on the 31 December 1999 (Friday) through 3 January 2000 (Monday) time frame. Y2K's overlap with the Millennial Date Change Event and all the associated angst, celebration, joy, and violence that milestone is likely to evoke from large numbers of people around the planet will make for a very confusing time period, during which far too many simultaneous local experiences will be processed for widespread consumption via a global mass media blow-out of epic proportions. Almost by definition, a crisis is a compression of time, during which "more things happen than usual," making societal response patterns unpredictable. So given all that's likely to be going on during Y2K's Onset Phase and the accompanying media saturation coverage, we will--by definition--experience a crisis atmosphere that will inevitably skew most people's perceptions of events.
Unfolding refers to the indeterminate length of time (depending primarily on a country's level of IT) that will have to pass before the private and public leadership circles within individual countries can ascertain the extent of Y2K-induced network failures they collectively face. Our assumption here is that more advanced IT countries will more quickly catalogue and analyze those failure events that have already transpired and thus generate more accurate estimates of what's left to unfold than will less advanced IT countries.
As a crisis management rule, this capacity for gathering intelligence and processing estimates should not be considered a predictor for the country's aggregate failure rates, so a shorter Unfolding Phase shouldn't be considered commensurate with a less traumatic Y2K Event, for the rush of failures is likely to be greater and thus more traumatic in a shorter phase. However, in terms of social response dynamics, it's fair to assume that the shorter the Unfolding Phase, the easier it is for Opinion Leaders to rebuild their influence over public perceptions. Correspondingly, the longer the Unfolding Phase (meaning the longer the sense of public uncertainty regarding the question, "How bad will this whole thing turn to be?"), the greater the potential for mass iatrogenic behavior that only confuses the situation further and complicates both direct recovery and broader crisis management efforts.
Peak refers to period during which a country experiences the maximum impact of its Y2K-induced network failures and whatever side effects those failures may create throughout the economic, social and political arenas. Naturally, the definition of "peak" is highly subjective, since it is very unlikely that countries or regions will experience Y2K in a collective, unifying sense. Y2K, if it turns out to be substantial for any one country, is likely to exhibit a strong "localizing" effect, meaning it will tend to cut communities off from one another, thus varying their individual experiences greatly. As such, any attempts to define or declare--on a country-wide basis--the "peak" of the Y2K Event will be highly contentious and politicized affair.
Exit Point refers to either an apparent or a self-declared end to the systemic Y2K Event and any associated crises. Like the definition of the "peak," this will be a highly contentious and politicized debate that will--assuming Y2K has been substantial--immediately segue into, and thus set many of the key judgment parameters for, the official and unofficial "score settling" that inevitably accompanies any crisis period. For example, in the United States the Y2K Exit Point is likely to overlap with the first few weeks of the 2000 Presidential primary season.
One key alternative scenario element for this phase is the emergence of a follow-on crisis--whether it be related or unrelated to Y2K--that effectively "ends" the Y2K Event by superseding it in national importance. Of course, in this instance, much would depend on the public's perception of the causality surrounding the "new crisis"--namely, did it truly arise "on its own" or was it "engineered" by "powers-that-be" to divert public attention from the continuing Y2K crisis (e.g., the "splendid little war" scenario, alternatively known as the "wag the dog" scenario).
The Scenario Dynamic Grid Explained
Slide 24 below presents our Y2K Scenario Dynamic Grid. The four-by-six grid is arrayed in the following manner:
- The four rows correspond to our four Y2K sector areas:
- Networks
- Business
- Social Response
- Governance.
- The six columns correspond to our six-phase composite scenario timeline:
- Mania
- Countdown
- 灵缇加速器 安卓
- Unfolding
- Peak
- Exit Point.
- The main entry for each grid box represents our definition of the key scenario dynamic in play for that sector area during that scenario phase. For example, "F2Q," or "flight to quality" is the key scenario dynamic in play in the Business sector during the Countdown Phase.
- The secondary entry (in the smaller red box-arrows) for each grid box represents our definition of a key emerging scenario dynamic to look out for as the timeline moves from that particular phase to the next one. For example, "Answer Man" is the key emerging scenario dynamic to watch for as the timeline moves from the Unfolding Phase to the Peak Phase in the Governance sector.
We offer the same general caveat regarding the Scenario Dynamics Grid that we cited for the M Curve: we feel fairly confident that the first three phases (Mania, Countdown, and Onset) will occur regardless of how Y2K actually unfolds post-010100, so the dynamics we cite in those columns are essentially predictions that we think will come true in some combination for enough states around the world so as to serve as a useful generic model. As for the final three phases (Unfolding, Peak, Exit Point), there we're getting into hypotheses regarding an assumed Y2K Event that proves to be stressing and substantial. In that regard, the scenario dynamics listed for those columns do not represent predictions of what must happen--only estimates of what could happen given a particular stressing scenario. In other words, if Y2K is a dud, you can largely forget the last three columns.
六毫秒加速器App-六毫秒加速器下载 1.0.1 安卓版-新云软件园:2021-6-12 · 六毫秒加速器 1.0.1 安卓版 海外党的网络加速应用 授权方式：免费软件 软件类型：国产软件 软件大小： 11.47 MB 推荐星级： 软件来源：成都俊云科技有限公司 更新时间：2021-06-12 16:23
The Network Timeline in Detail
Moving from left to right along the timeline:
In the Mania Phase you see the ramping up of the Stockpiling dynamic, with individual stockpiling attracting the most media attention, even though it's the stockpiling by economic firms and governments that will have far more profound market impact. Of course, stockpiling will occur in direct relationship to public fears concerning the interruptions of key network services (utilities and food distribution being the big drivers), and will reflect the strategic distance between the Public and Private Transcripts of business firms, i.e., the difference between what they're saying to reassure customers and the steps they're taking to deal with non-compliant suppliers and vendors. In both instances (individual and organizational stockpiling), it's the "little guy" who will suffer or fall behind, thus increasing "his" anxiety.
Thus the dynamic to watch as we go from Mania to Countdown is the emergence and increased agitation of the Most Vulnerable. On the individual basis, stockpiling is a middle-class (or better) phenomenon in that it requires disposable income that the poor do not possess. Since rural poor tend to have a better system of workarounds for these situations, the group to watch are the urban poor, who will likely be the first to feel any squeeze from stockpiling purchases and thus grow more anxious. In terms of economic firms, it's the Small/Medium Enterprises that will suffer, simply because they don't have the capital of larger firms to safeguard themselves against supplier disruptions.
In the Countdown Phase, Getting (It) There refers to two phenomena: 1) movement by people to locations where they may choose either to "celebrate" or "ride out" the millennial date-change event; and 2) a "topping off" of crucial supplies by individuals or organizations.
In the first sense, we expect to see a greater than average amount of travel in anticipation of the 010100-threshold. Rich people will want to travel somewhere exotic for fabulous celebrations. More religious-minded people will travel to holy meccas and shrines to celebrate Christendom's Third Millennium. Party-goers will pack urban areas for mammoth New Year's Eve extravaganzas. Apocalyptic-minded individuals will head to the hills or sanctuaries. Safety-conscious people may leave urban areas for rural ones. Families may gather with even greater frequency, either out of a simple desire to share the moment or out of concern for more vulnerable members. Governments may organize and move around security and/or crisis management forces. In short, a lot of movement may occur, with gross numbers linked to popular anticipation of the event as being historic or "once in a lifetime."
The "topping off" phenomenon in Networks will occur along a myriad of avenues, with one good example being the advice proffered by many authorities that it would be wise for everyone to have their cars' gas tanks filled up. If, for example, a large majority of a population attempts to actualize that advice in the last 2 to 3 days on 1999, it is quite possible that spot shortages will immediately appear (i.e., gas lines) and most nations' distribution networks aren't set up to handle that much volume in a concentrated time period. This, of course, would create a social dynamic all its own.
As we move from Countdown to Onset, the dynamic to watch involves efforts by authorities to encourage both individuals and organizations to go off-line as much as possible in the last few hours of 1999 and during the first 24-72 hours of 2000 (i.e., through the holiday weekend). Going Off-line means doing whatever is possible to reduce loads on utility networks. For example, it means encouraging large-scale celebrations to be as low-tech as possible to reduce electricity loads. It may mean also that authorities encourage more distributed celebrations to reduce stress on mass transit networks. Much of any government's success in encouraging this conservation will depend greatly on previous public education campaigns. For example, in the U.S. the FCC has already begun asking the public not to use telephones or modems on 31 December and 1 January to avoid overloading the public telephone system. In effect, the FCC fears some combination of the "Mother's Day" effect (i.e., everyone calls family members to note the historic occasion) and a "testing the system" effect (i.e., everyone checking to see if the phones and Internet are still working). Of course, if everyone tests or calls Mom at the same time, the stress on the telephone network can become a self-fulfilled prophesy. In countries around the world with less robust public utility networks, this dynamic is all the more important.
A particular subset of the Going Off-line dynamic refers to the possibility that some energy power plants--namely nuclear power plants--may be taken off-line for some indeterminate period of time surrounding the 010100 threshold due primarily to safety concerns. If this were to happen, then obviously a country's energy power grid would suffer diminished load capacity. At this time, however, predictions regarding such actions are highly speculative. For example, earlier this year there was a lot of loose talk about airlines and ports shutting down for some period surrounding 010100, and although some isolated declarations of intent have been made (e.g., Virgin Airlines giving employees New Year's Day off for "family reasons"), widespread shutdowns in either industry seem ever more unlikely as time passes and confidence regarding Y2K grows.
Once we get to the Onset Phase, despite the best efforts by authorities to encourage low-voltage celebrations, we nonetheless foresee great potential for the overloading of network systems. Again, we're talking the world's largest party, plus it's the middle of winter in the northern hemisphere. Factor in all the additional activity--and thus added network load--associated with Y2K, and we're looking at a possible spiking of demand for network services (e.g., electricity, phones, Internet access, mass transportation). The key element here is obviously electricity, for if that keeps flowing, then whatever additional demands emerge in other network areas can probably be handled in "rush hour" modes.
As such, it only makes sense as we move from Onset to Unfolding to watch out for Black Outs, or the disruptions of basic utilities, "downing" of the Internet in places, spotty phone service, etc. Current predictions for such disruptions range from the "Three-Day Snowstorm" analogy in the U.S. to predictions of far longer outages in places such as China or Russia. The key question for any country, though, is not whether the outages will happen, for some inevitably will, nor how long they last, as many countries deal quite nicely with such disruptions (thinking of Russia), but rather whether or not these blackouts represent the first of many interrelated waves of failures, or simply the early flame-out of the Y2K phenomenon.
If Y2K proves to be substantial and long-lasting, it will reveal itself in the Unfolding Phase, which in the Networks sector would lead to the dynamic of Rationing, meaning anything from rolling brownouts/blackouts in some utilities, to possible restrictions on access to mass transit or thoroughfares, to even the distribution of basic foodstuffs by authorities. The key point is that either non-market mechanisms will arise by government fiat and/or market prices will rise high enough to cause de facto rationing by wealth of items typically viewed as basic.
雷神加速器安卓版下载-雷神加速器安卓版官方版下载-华军软件园:2021-5-16 · 华军小编推荐： 雷神加速器安卓版一个非常不错的软件，偷偷告诉你小编也是用的本软件，别人小编都不告诉的哦！功能强大，绿色安全。华军软件园还为您提供开罗游戏、qq音乐、wps等供您下载。
A Peak Phase in the Network sector would feature the dynamic of Haves vs. Have Nots, caused simply by the disparities in deprivation engendered by network failures. Reasons for this would include:
- Better preparations for deprivation by some
- More disposable resources for some to deal with deprivations once they appear
- Some areas will feature a higher percentage of vulnerable populations (e.g., very young, very old, sick or disabled)
- Localizing effect will mean some communities are better situated in terms of basic supplies than others (e.g., southern areas will be in growing season while northern areas will not)
- Remediation efforts will have varied greatly by area
- Failures will not be evenly distributed or evenly timed.
In short, because some people and/or areas will do better than others, tensions will inevitably rise between groups suffering varying levels of "pain" or varying rates of recovery. Note, this is not the same as saying "people tend to freak out" during disasters, for here we're past the initial "disaster" and deep into the painful aftermath. By analogy, the Onset would correspond to the "people coming together when disaster hits" notion, whereas the Peak corresponds to the period weeks later when tempers begin to flare as people start realizing that although "we were all in the same boat in the beginning," that initial leveling phenomenon has given way to serious differences in rates of recovery and the ultimate resumption of "life as we knew it."
Getting us from the Peak to Exit Point, which we define as Metropolis Saved, meaning that if the cities are back to near-normal then the crisis is largely over from a Network perspective, may require some extraordinary efforts by some extraordinary actors. These efforts must either solve the problem of "things not moving" by fixing the networks themselves or by generating and supporting sufficient workarounds to get things moving by alternative means. We have dubbed this dynamic Network Leviathans, meaning super-empowered organizations that can somehow make things move even when it seems that normal network pathways are hopelessly disabled. By definition, we're first and foremost talking about militaries here, for it's the military that specializes in creating logistical networks where none have previously existed--typically on a battlefield. The down side to this is that no military in the world comes even close to matching the logistic capabilities of the U.S. Military. The up side is that most militaries around the world have some real experience in providing these functions within their own countries during times of natural disasters. So if it's a ragged capability in many countries, at least it's one that's familiar. Given that the U.S. Military is unlikely to get deeply involved within the United States, given the relatively robust nature of our distributed police, emergency response, and National Guard networks, one of the main roles it may play will be that of Network Leviathan overseas in conjunction with international and foreign national relief organizations.
【安卓版】路由插件加速&Switch游戏下载加速功能上线！ - QQ:2021-1-17 · 亲爱的用户， 腾讯加速器移动版现已支持 路由插件加速 & Switch游戏下载加速，扫描下方二维码下载腾讯加速器即可限时免费体验！！（仅限安卓） 操作指引： 1）路由插件加速 扫码下载并启动加速器后，在App中点击个人中心-主机路由加速，即可体验加速功能；
- Those "too dependent" on information technology will have their "comeuppance" while those more "self sufficient" will emerge from this experience more confident about a future that inevitably features an ever increasingly frequency of this sort of IT "disaster."
- Those "too slow" on information technology will have their "comeuppance" while those who adapt themselves with greater speed will emerge from this experience more confident about a future that inevitably features an ever increasing IT quotient.
The Business Timeline in Detail
Moving from left to right along the timeline:
In the Mania Phase we see the phenomenon of firms Taking Options, meaning business firms setting up and/or implementing alternative supplier/vendor arrangements in anticipation that some portion of their existing supplier/vendor base will not perform well in the coming Y2K Event. This is a variant of life-as-we-are-coming-to-know-it in the New Economy, with its rapidly shifting alliance strategies and frequent market-share quakes, and yet, it may take on an added dimension here because of the (potential) simultaneous actions of many firms focused around a single date in time. But in the end, all it really says about business and finance is that when managers look ahead to Y2K, they see winners and losers, and therefore plan accordingly. Nothing personal, mind you, just business.
As we move from Mania to Countdown, a compelling dynamic becomes the appearance and use of Leper Lists, which finger those suspected of not performing well in the coming Y2K Event. They are definitely a double-edged sword, for, on the one hand, they represent a great motivator for remediation laggards while, on the other hand, they can bring the same sort of self-fulfilling prophesies that one associates with rumors about a bank's liquidity--namely, bank runs. So if a supplier gets a bad wrap as "non-Y2K compliant" and then sees orders dry up as it is shunned by long-time business partners, then problems are bound to ensue regardless of the firm's ultimate Y2K vulnerability. The recent experience of the Global 2000 Coordinating Group and their near-publication of a Y2K-readiness rating of major trading nations (they backed off at the last minute for fear of sparking capital flight) speaks volumes about the dangers involved with such lists, and yet appear they will, for they represent serious intelligence about potential market failures by competitors. Firms will naturally want this information and--once they have it in hand--will naturally use it to their own advantage.
Flight to Quality is the natural dynamic of choice for the Countdown Phase, for it speaks to the notions of last-minute panics and the desire for safe haven. Recent history has given us plenty of examples of what Thomas Friedman would call "stampeding" by the international "Electronic Herd" of global investors. Moreover, there's plenty of good history to back up the concern, as the Economist pointed out in its September 1998 survey of Y2K (19 September 1998, p. 4):
Since the start of modern times, the end of a century has been a time of economic unease. The British and Dutch stock markets in 1699 and 1799 and the Dow in 1899 all saw sharp falls in prices, according to ING Barings, a Dutch bank; between December 2nd and 18th 1899, the Dow fell by 23%. A millennium, even more than a centennial, would be spooky enough without the fear of computer failure. Perceptions, rather than reality, may turn out to be the most dangerous aspect of that pesky millennium bug.
Of course, none of this says anything about the mid-term stability of global financial markets, nor about Y2K, but only about the psychology of investors and their periodic tendency to engage in fear-fulfillment.
So where does the money go? Gold prices are at historical lows. The U.S. stock market is overvalued already by the measure of many experts, and yet would seem to offer a great place to park cash in the short run since the U.S. should come through Y2K okay. Or do Internet stocks come tumbling down, bearing the brunt of the technology fear? In short, you ask enough questions and fairly soon you're back in the life-as-we're-coming-to-know-it territory that one associates with the emerging New Economy, again begging the question of whether or not Y2K represents something fundamentally unique in history or a harbinger of the future.
The dynamic to watch as we move from Countdown to Onset is what we refer to as Cash On Hand, meaning both the issue of liquidity in markets (e.g., everyone trying to sell bonds at once in a certain small-country market and finding no buyers) and the issue of paper money in circulation. Both issues revolve around panic and the desire for fungible assets during a perceived time of great uncertainty. So cash on hand may be an important safety cushion for a country's central bank in terms of protecting themselves from both outside forces (e.g., foreign currency reserves to ward off speculators) and inside forces (e.g., sufficient money in circulation to ward off bank runs). A rule we might propose for this dynamic would be, the more control you have over your country's cash reserves (having more is obviously better) and money in circulation (to include the printing of money), the safer you are regarding Y2K-induced financial panics. Again, there's nothing terribly particular to Y2K about this advice, rather it's simply the occurrence of Y2K that highlights a capacity that countries are increasingly coming to value in a globalized New Economy.
With the Onset of Y2K, we expect to witness the dynamic of an economic Dead Zone that will encompass both retail and financial transactions. In retail, we're talking about a consumer that's already spent his or her available disposable income either on Y2K preparations or end/beginning-of-year holidays or some combination thereof. In the financial world, we're talking about companies--far more than usual--working to move transactions away from the end of the calendar year, meaning "earlier" into December or "later" into January. Again, neither of these dynamics is particular to Y2K or the Millennial Date Change Event, but are part of the normal end-of-calendar-year business cycle. All we're predicting here is a larger than normal effect. For example, we'd expect extra market "holidays" around the 010100 threshold in many countries around the world, as markets there attempt to ease their financial sectors past the date change in as relaxed fashion as possible (possibly phasing them in over several days before reaching full working volume). Even if markets or governments didn't take these extraordinary steps, the wariness of individual firms and investors to play in those first few days might well do the trick all by itself.
Of course, at some point, financial markets have to come back online completely, and here's where our more speculative material kicks in. If Y2K turns out to be widespread and substantial in impact starting in January, the dynamic we look for in financial circles are what we'd call Market Quakes. This refers to Y2K-induced or related network failures that either directly disable financial market operations or create cascading investor panic about broader economic dynamics (including disabled market operations) that find their reflection in wild market swings. Such quakes, of course, can start anywhere on the planet, but once started, tend to move with time zones from one global super-market to another (e.g., from Tokyo to Hong Kong to Europe to London to New York and then all over again). Rather than labeling this dynamic a "financial contagion," it's really more a matter of copied behavior: investors in one market fear that what they're watching in another market is a clear indicator of their own future, thus eliciting similar defensive responses. For the business timeline as a whole, this is probably the key single dynamic, for if Y2K is going to kick into a larger economic downturn, the first real signs probably appear here. Conversely, if Y2K is going to turn out to be a financial non-event, the lack of any market instabilities here will go a long way toward killing any potential downturn in its tracks.
Moving in the Unfolding Phase, here is the time for the Internet-based economic "doombrooders" such as Edward Yardeni either have to fish or cut bait, meaning either we see the dynamic of Fortressing and Islanding rise up in a serious way or these theories of economic back stabbing decimating social trust and destroying business chains will need to be quickly discarded. Of course, some of this dynamic may have already unfolded during the previous phases, especially the Mania one, but it's really in this phase, when the supply chain failures pile up that this dynamic should rear its ugly head in a broad-scale manner if Y2K is going to unfold in a truly dramatic and destructive manner. And again, what's dramatic and destructive about islanding and fortressing is the loss of social trust and what that will do to aggregate economic behavior. If individuals see great numbers of long-standing trust relationships evaporate overnight in response to Y2K-related failures, then perceptions of the future will change drastically and for the worse. In short, we'll clearly be in a new and largely unknown rule set.
The key dynamic to watch regarding popular perceptions of an emerging rule set is what we call Personal GDP—namely, the depletion of financial resources set aside to weather the Y2K Event. Everyone—every person, firm, government, etc.—will enter into the Y2K experience with certain expectations regarding how much this is going to cost them. When this threshold is reached, meaning the money (and/or other assets) set aside is gone, perceptions of economic loss can escalate dramatically and result in a significant skewing of individual and collective decision making. Of course, the more individuals and organizations plan for a “tall” Bell Curve, but instead find themselves riding the stretched-out “far side” of a curve that never seems to end, the worse this dynamic becomes.
【安卓版】路由插件加速&Switch游戏下载加速功能上线！ - QQ:2021-1-17 · 亲爱的用户， 腾讯加速器移动版现已支持 路由插件加速 & Switch游戏下载加速，扫描下方二维码下载腾讯加速器即可限时免费体验！！（仅限安卓） 操作指引： 1）路由插件加速 扫码下载并启动加速器后，在App中点击个人中心-主机路由加速，即可体验加速功能；
To go from the Peak to Exit Point, countries may well have to face the task of some sort of SME Triage, meaning some sort of economic or political response to substantial numbers of Y2K-related business failures among Small and Medium Enterprises. We don't have any simple answers on this one; we just note the potential rapid loss of jobs connected with SMEs and the tendency of many governments around the world to consider that a serious threat to political stability. For SME failures to occur in great numbers, one would imagine the confluence of three dynamics over a substantial length of time:
- Direct Y2K failures leading to failed business operations
- Islanding and fortressing of extant business partners by firms in response to failed business operations
- Increased exposure to litigation liability for breached contracts or product liability issues.
We define the Exit Point as Winners Crowned, meaning the identification of individuals or firms that are perceived as having flourished during the Y2K-induced economic crisis and who, by doing so, set the tone for whatever New Rules characterize the resulting economic legacy of Y2K. This, of course, will be greatly determined in most countries by the accompanying political legacy to be discussed below in the Governance timeline. A good way to think of this dynamic is to reflect on how Wall Street periodically crowns some new set of financial "giants" every X years as defining what seems to be a new model of market activity (e.g., the "quants" or "professors" after 1987). Of course, if Y2K is substantial for a country, we could see the "winners" emerging with a far greater concentration of wealth, particularly if many SMEs are to die off or be absorbed by larger firms. If this occurred, one could easily consider--yet again--that Y2K fits well within the paradigm of the New Economy, which is described by many as featuring a high SME failure rate and a winner-takes-all playing field.
【安卓版】路由插件加速&Switch游戏下载加速功能上线！ - QQ:2021-1-17 · 亲爱的用户， 腾讯加速器移动版现已支持 路由插件加速 & Switch游戏下载加速，扫描下方二维码下载腾讯加速器即可限时免费体验！！（仅限安卓） 操作指引： 1）路由插件加速 扫码下载并启动加速器后，在App中点击个人中心-主机路由加速，即可体验加速功能；
Moving from left to right along the timeline:
In the Mania Phase we cite the Truth is Out There dynamic signifying large amounts of popular distrust of the Public Transcript put forth by government and business leaders regarding Y2K potential impact. By some estimates, for example, there are more than 100,000 web sites currently devoted to "surviving Y2K." Clearly there's a significant market for this sort of material, meaning that the "good cop, bad cop" approach pursued by many authorities (i.e., Don't worry! But get ready!) tends to drive a percentage of the populace to non-traditional sources of crisis-related information. In short, many people "out there" assume that the "full story" is somehow being "kept from them," while the "official story" is not to be fully trusted. It's not hard to see why there's so much mistrust. It is very hard to determine who is an "expert" on Y2K, much less what good data is, and very little of the material you see on the subject expresses anything close to ambivalence. In the end, the fine line between proper preparation and overreaction is almost impossible to pin down. Meanwhile, advocates on both sides of the argument constantly deride the other's attempts as "misinformation" of some sort or another.
Not surprisingly, the dynamic to watch as we move from Mania to Countdown are Rumor Mills, for when people don't feel that authorities are being fully transparent in terms of information sharing, then they tend to seek out and respond to whatever informal information they can get their hands on. The Internet naturally plays a huge role in this, as does the mass media, but it is really the face-to-face communication that tends to hold the greatest sway over popular actions as uncertainty rises. That's only natural, since people tend to turn to others close to them for advice and collaborative thinking during crisis periods. So, as a general rule, the greater the popular perception of looming crisis, the greater the role played by rumor mills in particular, and informal communication channels in general, with the most dangerous situation being when authorities have effectively lost the attention of the public regarding preparations for crisis management. It is also fair to say that rumor mills tend to work more effectively in less developed economies than in more advanced ones, where access to mass media is virtually universal. Finally, it's probably accurate to say that rumor mills will generate increasingly wilder stories (e.g., urban legends) as the 010100 threshold looms, therefore many of the activities of authorities near the end of the Y2K build-up will be focused on stamping out "bad information" vice spreading "good information."
When the Countdown Phase ensues, Information Overload seems inevitable for all societies not undergoing some greater sort of "crisis," whatever that could be. Mass media coverage of the Millennial Date Change Event and "looming Y2K crisis" is likely to reach epidemic and epic proportions, in large part because the latter presents almost everything one could ask for in terms of a global media event: great uncertainty, great danger, great debate, lots of conflicting expertise eager to sway public opinion, a worldwide "playing field," and a worldwide audience. Toss in the world's largest party and we're talking some high ratings, especially for news programs which increasingly specialize in releasing frightening bits of information to the public over a stretch of time as a way to ensure continued loyalty. Since bad news sells better than good, it goes without saying that much "bad news" will be "found" by the mass media during the last few weeks of 1999. The effect of all this "bad news" can have one of two effects on the public: scare them into action or numb them into inaction or indifference. Much will likely be determined by individual exposure to network failures prior to 010100 that can be causally linked to Y2K: if no to little exposure happens, the heavy media coverage is likely to incite indifference, whereas significant exposure may incite some level of panic among those "convinced" by their experiences.
Moving from Countdown to Onset, we watch for the dynamic we entitle, Final Solutions, by which we mean individual citizens and organization actively engaging in "endgame" strategies decided upon weeks or perhaps even months earlier. This aggregate pursuit of what could be highly idiosyncratic coping (or simply celebratory) strategies may well be disorienting for society as a whole, for it may appear to all that significant segments of the population are clearly "going their own way" at the last moment, thus decreasing social trust as a whole as the 010100 threshold looms. Since, in many cases, the exhibited behavior may be the first public expression of that which up to now has been a strictly Private Transcript, the sudden shift in behavior by many may ratchet up the level of uncertainty and fear for the society as a whole. Of course, the classic story here is the one concerning survivalists or apocalyptics "heading for the hills" at the last moment, determined to "escape the chaos." Another variant that may wreak serious social harm is that small minority of mentally unbalanced individuals who may seek to "go out with a bang" on their own terms, raising the potential for a cluster of Jamestown-like mass suicides, Littleton-like shooting tragedies, and/or Waco-like stand-off between authorities and heavily-armed religious cults. In this regard, we'd argue that special security attention be given to religious shrines or meccas, or any place with strong significance for typically marginal social elements with a history of acting out violently during times of stress.
When the Onset finally hits, there will simply be a Will to Party that is both inescapable and profoundly powerful. To a great extent, the public desire for mass celebration should be accommodated to the greatest degree possible while seeking to reduce network pressures and limit unmanageable concentrations of people. Typical celebrations magnets, such as religious meccas, capital cities, and cultural landmarks, are likely to be packed to the breaking point, and while that presents significant security problems, attempts by authorities to block access are likely to be counterproductive. Naturally, the "world's largest party" is likely to produce a corresponding large amount of personal injuries, sporadic low-level violence, spontaneous riots, alcohol- and drug-related crimes and medical situations, and so on and so on. Almost none of this will have anything to do with Y2K in and of itself, but instead will simply reflect the nature of the Millennial Date Change Event in the country in question. If Y2K failures do disrupt such celebrations, there should be cause for alarm and yet, most people "trapped" in such situations respond quite nicely by rising to the occasion according to the spirit of the celebration. This is not to say that riots, violence, etc., won't happen, but that the additional burden of Y2K-related failures is unlikely to exacerbate their normal course to any significant degree. In short, it will be a wild party no matter what, and if Y2K "joins in," its immediate effect is likely to be negligible.
As we move from the Onset to Unfolding, an inevitable dynamic will be one of Panic Release, meaning social expressions of exasperation, anger, fear and loathing. The possible angles are many, with the following being just a few:
- Some will be exhausted by all the recent uncertainty, build-up, and celebration
- 天行加速器app下载_天行加速器安卓版下载v2.2.1.2223_咖 ...:咖绿茵手游站提供天行加速器下载 是不是在玩游戏的时候会卡顿，那就快来下载《天行加速器》它是喜欢玩游戏朋友的福音。 内存小巧实用，智能加速的加速不会下降，享受全球无国界的热度。一键加速，超低流量为市场提供支持。游戏的兼容性强，适应体验得到优化。
- Still others will be angry that Y2K turned out to be "far worse" than authorities "let on"
- Some will be angry at the lack of the "apocalypse," "rapture," or supernatural intervention in human affairs
- Others will be convinced that such "end times" are indeed unfolding
- 六毫秒加速器App-六毫秒加速器下载 1.0.1 安卓版-新云软件园:2021-6-12 · 六毫秒加速器 1.0.1 安卓版 海外党的网络加速应用 授权方式：免费软件 软件类型：国产软件 软件大小： 11.47 MB 推荐星级： 软件来源：成都俊云科技有限公司 更新时间：2021-06-12 16:23
In short, the Millennial Date Change Event, along with the threat of the Y2K Event, is likely to elicit a strong build-up of social tension, not all of which will be spent in the celebrations surrounding 010100. There will be burn-out, a sense of let-down, along with heightened anxiety that Y2K "has finally begun." Many, if not most of the population will take all this in stride, but a significant minority will not. The big question will be whether that minority's actions will trigger broader social responses that authorities cannot control or simply be contained by authorities and written off by the larger public as the "typical nonsense of the extremists/troublemakers/wackos."
Assuming a significant Unfolding of the Y2K Event, the next dynamic of note is the Iatrogenic Zone, or what we like to call, "average people doing stupid things under duress"--something we're all familiar with. This is not so much panic, as the purposeful attempt to "fix things" that only leads to making them worse. Tackling real and identifiable problems is only a small portion of this dynamic (e.g., "experts" who attempt to "fix" things, armed only with their blinding ignorance), because the real damage tends to be done by those individuals or groups that target the imaginary, insignificant or unrelated "Y2K problems" with great gusto and, by doing so, create follow-on failures and clouds of confusion about actual Y2K causality. This dynamic is a key one for extending the Y2K Event beyond its minimal boundaries and into the realm of an unanticipated disaster, with the paradigm being the stunned local official staring into the news reporter's camera stammering, "We had no idea that people were going to . . .."
As we watch for a transition point from Unfolding to Peak, the crucial social dynamic is what we call the Trigger Effect (referencing the 1996 Amblin Entertainment movie of the same name noted earlier in this report). As stated before, most people do not panic during disasters, but rather rise to the occasion nicely, with only a very small minority succumbing--temporarily--to so-called disaster shock (i.e., a massive mental reordering of priorities following a cataclysmic event). The Trigger Effect doesn't refer to either of those two realities, but rather to one that appears much further down the road in a crisis--namely, when "battle fatigue" sets in. A particularly acute trigger of this sort of "crossing-the-line" behavior is the perception that either the crisis is being artificially drawn out by uncaring authorities ("Why don't they fix things faster?") or that recovery rates are unequal "for a reason"--meaning preferential treatment is being afforded by authorities. Nothing brings on the "short fuses" faster than the sense that "we're no longer in this together," whether the "they" are those receiving preferential treatment or the slow-footed authorities suspected of tending to their own needs first.
The Peak situation is obviously the most volatile phase in the social sphere, for it is here that group anger boils over and looks for ways to express itself. Typically, that means the targeting of small, easily identifiable demographic groups toward whom long-standing resentments have been harbored by the majority, usually over a sense of economic injustice ("They have exploited us long enough!"). Scapegoating, or the dynamic of targeting relatively weaker groups for persecution, is nothing more than the age-old practice of human sacrifice in light of "unexpected" and "unexplainable" disaster (meaning, in a practical sense, that those truly "guilty" are unreachable, so instead, "you hate the one you're with"--with apologies to Stephen Stills). In effect, disaster seems to rain down on you from on high, and since there's nothing you can do about the "source," you appease the anger within by striking out against those nearby that you've always resented anyway. In Indonesia, for example, during the 1997-98 Global Financial Crisis, it was the ethnic Chinese that often served as scapegoats, although sporadic reports of "ninja witches" being hunted down by villagers in remote areas made for the most compelling reportage. No matter what the idiosyncratic explanations by locals for this violent behavior, it remains nothing more than the inherent human tendency to look for someone to blame and target for persecution whenever "hard times" suddenly appear and the causality seems unclear or complex.
Of course, Scapegoating lies not only in the realm of mass behavior, but often serves as a political tool by those already in, or vying for, power. For example, an embattled regime is well served by blaming the society's ills on some small demographic group and then arranging for their state-sponsored persecution (think of Rwanda, for example). Then there's the targeting of political opponents or rivals (e.g., Malaysia following the financial crisis) designed to buttress the sagging political fortunes of a leader perceived to have done poorly by his or her people. In short, "hard times" breed harsh attitudes, and harsh attitudes make for absolute solutions, which in turn make for excellent political tools for those leaders with the will and way to divide and conquer (or typically, reconquer) their own populations during conditions of internal crisis. Think of Lenin in Russia during World War I, or Hitler in Weimar Germany, and you get the picture of the potential for political tumult under the right conditions.
Can Y2K create such dire circumstances in any country? Assuming the right set of truly disastrous proportions, anything is possible. In short, our planet's recent good fortune in seeing unrest lead to greater political freedom shouldn't blind us to the potential for equally negative outcomes. One true bright spot, though, is our hypothesis that Y2K will probably present greater political unrest potential for authoritarian states than for democracies. Why? Again, distributiveness equals robustness with regard to network failures, and democracies are simply more distributed than authoritarian regimes.
The dynamic to which authorities may have to resort to move their societies out of the Peak Phase and into the Exit Point is proving to their public that the Guilty Will Pay. Now, this probably sounds a bit hypocritical following the previous paragraphs on scapegoating, but the reality is that a key motivation for scapegoating is the perception that the truly guilty are out of reach and therefore untouchable, so instead you reach for what's at hand. When authorities act to demonstrate to the public that rules still matter and those who break them will not get away with it due to the perception of unusual circumstances ("All bets are off!"), they send a strong signal that while a new rule set may be emerging, the old one still operates in familiar ways, forcing accountability in the end. Accountability is what keeps vigilantism and scapegoating at bay, for it says that--ultimately--those who break the rules will pay for their crimes. Hopefully, authorities can convince the public that state-directed retribution will remain within legal parameters, but it's entirely possible that in certain extraordinary situations, extraordinary (meaning, extra-legal) measures will have to be taken. That can sound fairly sinister from an American perspective, because we have relatively high legal standards, but in many countries around the world, definitions of extra-legal means are highly dependent on the circumstances or the crisis and cultural (in)sensitivity to losses of political liberty.
The Exit Point for the Social Response timeline is easily defined--namely, the broad perception that the "Worst is Over!"
Once the perception takes hold that the Y2K Event has crested and we're on a downward glide path back toward "life as we knew it," the crisis effectively ends in terms of social response. Naturally, attempts by authorities to will this view into popular acceptance will probably be met with significant resistance if the gap between rhetoric and reality is too much for the populace to bear. In the best possible path, a freely operating mass media senses this spontaneous mood shift among the citizenry and "declares" victory on their behalf.
The legacy issue for the Social Response realm is the potential for New Faiths to emerge from Y2K's ashes. These faiths can be either secular (i.e., political movements) or religious based, with the key attribute being their self-perceived "birth" under conditions of great crisis. Along these lines, we cite the emergence of the revolutionary Marxist group Tupac Amaru in Peru following a tremendous natural disaster (earthquake). In short, disaster can bring people together in all sorts of ways, with political or social activism--be it peaceful or violent--a frequent long-term outcome. Given the tumultuous global changes of the 1990s, it's only natural to assume that new faiths will rise up in challenge to, or support of, new definitions of the status quo. If Y2K triggers enough social tumult, it may crystallize a larger moment in history in the minds of those either happy or unhappy with the recent transformations wrought by the end of the Cold War, the Information Revolution, and the emergence of Globalization and the New Economy.
The Governance (aka, Political) Timeline in Detail
Moving from left to right along the timeline:
In the Mania Phase we focus on the dynamic of the Credibility Gap, referring to the tendency of populations to distrust "official truths" put forth by government agencies on the subject of Y2K. This gap extends in both directions, meaning it includes both those who believe the state is too lax in tackling the issue and doesn't warn the public enough about its potential effects and those who believe the state is unnecessarily hyping the issue and scaring the public. The later any government began its efforts to raise public awareness and push remediation efforts, the greater the gap will be, for the public tends to respond in one of two ways:
- People assume the government "blew it" by not tackling the subject earlier, and hence is covering up its "mistakes" now.
- 飞七棋牌游戏加速器安卓版-反水最高2%:云锦的织造工艺除前面介绍的“挑花结本”、“通经继纬”以。外，夹金织银也是云锦的一大特点。。飞七棋牌游戏加速器安卓版相。关。新闻 湖北籍毕。业生面。临更严峻形势，国家相关部门出台。支持政策另外，亲友。同台献。
Outside of the U.S., the dynamic carries the additional burden of potential anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-capitalism, and/or anti-technologism, for the Y2K "problem" is easily identified as stemming from any or all of those quarters and thus remains suspect in terms of actual causality ("Is it a real problem or an American scam?"). Additionally, tied to both these variants is the sub theme that either the government or the U.S. Government in particular really knows how to "make Y2K go away" but isn't "coming clean with us" for some selfish reason (e.g., profit motive, "plot" to derail the Euro's introduction).
Given this substantial level of distrust of government leadership on the issue, a crucial dynamic as we move from Mania to Countdown is any public or private sector efforts to educate the public about how to prepare for the Y2K Event, aka Y2K & U-type promotional and educational material or campaigns. Obviously, the earlier and more aggressive the campaign, the better. Likewise, the more transparent and honest the campaign, the better. Sounding too ominous only scares the public either into hyperaction or inaction, while sounding too optimistic only makes people think you're holding back the "bad news." Emphasis should be on the universality of the effect and the universality of the response--"we are all in this together." Since IT-awareness is relatively scarce in many countries around the world, while work-arounds for network failures are a fact of daily life, these campaigns in many parts of the world can focus more on explaining causality than the provision of "survival information." In other words, in most places people know what to do already in response to Y2K-induced failures (i.e., the same old, same old), so authorities should focus their educational campaign on dampening any potential social backlash that could be fueled by disparities in suffering or recovery times, as well as ignorance of causality leading to the propagation of conflict-triggering "explanations" ("Let me tell you why this really is happening to us and why you shouldn't take it anymore!").
Once the Countdown Phase begins, our dynamic comes more in the form of advice, as in, "Go with the Authority on Tap." By this we mean that governments should not seek to introduce special leaders, authoritative bodies, or new rule sets in the waning days of 1999, but rather should stick with the architecture of authority they (hopefully) have already put in place during the previous months. If new authorities and rules are introduced at this late date, governments are likely to trigger more distrust than trust, and more rule-breaking than rule-abiding than if they simply went with what they already have--no matter how deficient. Why? Any last-minute introduction of new authority only fuels popular suspicions or fears that the government is ill-prepared and/or now is finally "coming clean" on its "secret plans" to use Y2K as a pretext for some sort of reordering of political relations either within the government or between the government and the population. The positioning or use of military and/or security forces becomes a highly volatile issue during this phase, for it represents the worst fears of some regarding the government's "true motives" vis-a-vis Y2K.
Such popular suspicions only highlight the government's need to get it's security "house in order" substantially prior to the 010100-threshold. This is especially true in relation to the key dynamic we cite for the transition period from Countdown to Onset--the danger of the First Strike. First Strike refers to the high probability that significant numbers of activist groups will seek to mark the Millennial Date Change Event by engaging in some high-profile activities--both malevolent and benign, but focused foremost on garnering mass media attention--in support of whatever cause they espouse. Most political causes or movements--not just the extreme, apocalyptic ones--tend to be very date sensitive, meaning history and the milestones of time's passage play a great role in motivating action and determining its timing. The 2000 threshold will simply be too great a target for most such groups to pass up, regardless of their motives (i.e., anything from simple self-celebration to catastrophic violence). Moreover, the rise of the Information Revolution provides new avenues for such strategies, most notably the Internet and the World Wide Web, which are likely to see explosions of released viruses and various expressions of hacktivism (i.e., politically-oriented hacking). In short, authorities should expect all sorts of groups standing up at this point and declaring, in so many words, that either "We rule!" or "We're not going to take it anymore!"
Once the Onset hits, the government's key task is Keeping Up Appearances, meaning maintaining normal routines to whatever extent possible as Y2K emerges and millennial celebrations/activities are played out so as to avoid fueling any popular fears regarding the potential for social disorder. Those elements looking for opportunities to foment greater levels of popular uncertainty or fear will likewise be watching closely for signs that things are amiss. So to this end, governments must be prepared to see through to completion whatever normal routines exist for marking the beginning of the new year, with special emphasis placed on the safety of notable figures--both public and private--who may participate or attend. For example, imagine the potential uncertainty and fear engendered by the missed or failed (for whatever reason) appearance of an important religious leader at a long-scheduled and highly-attended public celebration. Following this line of reasoning, governments should avoid overloading themselves with too many events and their attendant security requirements. Better to do less and do it well than do too much and risk unintended consequences. In short, stay with what you know.
Moving out of the Onset and into the Unfolding, be aware that Opportunists Abound. For the same reason why we advise authorities not to overextend themselves right at the 010100 threshold, many political opportunists such as terrorists and others looking to take advantage of a decreased security environment under conditions of "chaos" will likewise probably adopt a wait-and-see attitude regarding Y2K's unfolding. Unlike the First Strike types who are so eager to make their mark with an eye toward history, these typically more malevolent actors will look to piggy-back their destructive or criminal actions on Y2K-related failures so as to maximize their impact and/or rewards. A variety of strategies can be imagined:
- Spoofing Y2K failures to induce more network uncertainty and increase popular fears
- Striking to take advantage of security failures caused by Y2K
- Taking credit for Y2K failures they had no part in producing.
坚果加速器下载_坚果加速器安卓版下载_全方位下载:2021-6-14 · 坚果加速器是一款运行流畅、稳定、高智能的手机加速软件。为用户提供国际专线、高效率加速运行、自动优化、一键游戏加速等功能。解决玩家在玩游戏的时候游戏延迟过高、登录困难、掉线、运行卡顿等问题。坚果加速器安卓版还随时为您提供移动设备的网络智能测速，定向测速，封堵检测 ...
蚂蚁ant加速器安卓下载 - 好看123:2 天前 · 4.蚂蚁海外加速器永久免费版蚂蚁ant加速器安卓下载v120花猪下 点击前往 网站介绍：2021年3月17日 - 蚂蚁ant加速器破解版app可以为你带来更好的游戏加速服务,你可以在这进行广告方面的去除,将会为你带来专业化的操作,你可以在这得到更多独立的节点,将会为你带来更...
The dynamic to watch out for as we move from Unfolding to Peak is the appearance of the Answer Man, or the political and/or military leader who promises a rapid reduction in disorder and uncertainty if only he (or she) is allowed to amass--albeit on a "temporary basis"--extraordinary power and institute certain strong measures that typically involve a drastic loss of civil liberties for the population as a whole. Of course, history teaches us that this "temporary basis" often turns out to be a great number of years, usually ending with the "great leader's" death and the plunging of the political system into great turmoil. If such an individual is to appear under Y2K's peak conditions, his or her ideological appeal is likely to be based on anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-capitalism and/or anti-technologism. Thus the "cure" offered will likely involve sort level of detachment from the global economy, or a firewall strategy of sorts. In this way, the likely outcome of any state's Y2K "disaster" is likely to be one of systematic withdrawal versus striking out in anger against one's neighbors or the West in general. The regions where this outcome is most likely are those with the lowest development levels, i.e., the least to lose in such a strategy.
The Peak Phase dynamic of greatest importance is the state's Mobilization Capacity in the face of an onslaught of popular demands for government services and general redress under conditions of social stress and perhaps open disorder. If all of the dynamics outlined above are occurring in the Network, Business and Social spheres, then the government is likely to inundated with a flood of trouble calls, appeals for disaster relief, anger and resentment, etc. Only the most advanced states have historically exhibited a great capacity to effectively channel such a broad array of public demands in a short period of time under crisis conditions, and even there capabilities are occasionally found to be greatly lacking (e.g., the slow response of the Japanese government to the Kobe earthquake). Even in these advanced states, however, the potential universality of the Y2K Event presents a huge challenge, for crisis management of natural disasters, for example, is based on the principle of attacking the problem through a huge and rapid in-flow of out-of-area help. Outside the rather small circle of advanced economies with strong mobilization capacity, the vast majority of states around the world exhibit far more meager skill sets. A good indication of this is the exceeding thin nature of local police in most developing states. Just like individual regions within advanced states, less developed countries face the additional burden of possibly being denied out-of-area help from those very same advanced states too preoccupied with their own Y2K problems. In short, many may dial their version of 9-1-1, only to receive a "busy signal."
Again, taking into consideration all the different Peak Phase dynamics presented in other timelines, it's easier to understand the notion that--in the political realm--desperate times often require dramatic acts be taken by those in power to maintain social control. We call this dynamic, Killer Apps, referring to bold political actions that serve to erase popular uncertainty and restore public faith in government control. At its most benign, a killer app can be nothing more than a Churchillian speech by a national leader that calms the public and draws people together in the "common cause" of recovery. At its most malevolent, a killer app can be nothing less than an authoritarian leader's liquidation of a troublesome opposition party through mass arrest and imprisonment or executions. It can be the calculated, top-down direction of ethnic conflict designed to unleash maximum violence or the imposition of martial law to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. In effect, it can be almost anything so long as it's bold and redraws the lines of uncertainty and disorder set in motion by the Y2K Event. But as with any attempt to "seize the bull by the horns," unintended consequences can abound. In short, it can be a very wild ride.
We define the Exit Point dynamic as the beginning of the Legal Deconstruction, meaning anything from letting the lawyers "go at it" to the collapse of a coalition government and the resulting special election, to the passing of new laws, to the resignation of top government officials, to special government investigations as to "what went wrong," and so on. In short, the legal deconstruction is nothing more than the resumption of standard government procedures for "digesting" a crisis experience and moving back to "life as we knew it." Obviously, this is where many of Y2K's legacy issues will be dealt with. Likewise, this is where the great social debate will be held as to whether Y2K represented a unique, almost exogenous event akin to an Act of God, or the harbinger of what instability and crises will look like in the next century.
The legacy issue of the political realm is Y2K's potential to alter leadership rosters. Obviously, Y2K will occur on someone's "watch," so popular perceptions of the current government's handling of its crisis management duties will determine the likelihood of turnover by either legal (e.g., elections) or extra-legal (e.g., revolts) means. New Rulers are likely to arise on the basis of:
- Popularity untainted by the crisis (e.g., leaders in exile or out of power)
- Popularity achieved during the crisis (e.g., military or technically-focused leaders)
- Popularity on the basis of representing a stark alternative (e.g., so-called Green or anti-technology/development leaders, those advocating a "simpler lifestyle" or a "less Western lifestyle, those advocating a return to "better values")
- Willingness to take advantage of disorder through bold political means (e.g., revolutionaries, dictators).
Looking across the other legacy issues defined earlier (New Faultlines, New Rules, New Faiths), it's not a great stretch of the imagination to say that Y2K, if it were to unfold as a global event of significant disturbance, has the potential to represent a turning point in human history, coming as it does on the heels of the end of the Cold War, the rise of Globalization, and the unfolding of the Information Revolution. Then again, history is rarely scheduled as neatly as Y2K.
Whenever I look back on this report, I always think what an incredible privilege it was to visit the future of crises in this manner, and how much it taught me.
See the entire Y2K report here.
Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:07PM 
