the year 2000 drew near, the globe prepared for possible turmoil. Hong Kong accumulated food supplies, Virgin America halted flights, and the U.S. Federal Reserve printed an additional $50 billion. This was not merely a typical New Year’s Eve—it was the dreaded Y2K. The worry? Computers worldwide might fail to acknowledge the new century, resulting in disastrous errors. Fears ranged from train derailments and power failures to lost bank information and even nuclear disasters.
Looking back, the alarm was mostly exaggerated. The world continued to turn on January 1, 2000, with few interruptions. Chris Taylor, currently a senior editor at Mashable and a past reporter covering Y2K for *TIME* magazine, remembers that by late 1999, the danger had notably lessened. The predicament originated from 20th-century programming habits, where creators employed two-digit year codes to conserve space on punch cards in COBOL, an early programming language.
“It was the mid-20th century, and nobody really worried about what would occur when the cosmic odometer clicked over,” Taylor stated in a January 1999 *TIME* piece. “However, today the world relies on computers, and older systems depend on patched versions of COBOL that could easily fail or malfunction upon reaching a double-zero date.”
—
### The Millennium’s Major News Highlight
At that time, Taylor’s journalism aimed to reduce the hysteria, stressing that developers had been proactively addressing the issue. Few recall now that there was a minor “trial run” for Y2K months ahead of the actual event. On September 9, 1999 (9/9/99), a date that typically indicated “end of program” in legacy systems, worries about glitches turned out to be unfounded.
“We had less apprehension about the new year because there was a significant test,” Taylor shares. “Sept. 9 passed without a problem.”
Nevertheless, some media outlets amplified the sense of looming catastrophe. Taylor remembers that *TIME* magazine’s January 1999 cover showcased a doomsday enthusiast with a sandwich board proclaiming, “End of the world!?! Apocalypse Now, will computers crash? Will society? A guide to MILLENNIUM MADNESS.” While the related article eventually called for moderation, its more cautious conclusions were buried several pages deep.
Hollywood also capitalized on the trend, releasing two disaster films in 1999—both named *Y2K*—that portrayed the potential consequences.
—
### Deconstructing the Hysteria
Taylor points out that a significant portion of the Y2K panic was linked to religious and apocalyptic fears, as the date marked 2,000 years since the birth of Christ. “If you’re looking to create a computer bug that would incite widespread anxiety, align it with the transition from 1999 to 2000 when people were already in an apocalyptic frenzy,” he remarks.
On New Year’s Eve 1999, Taylor was in Times Square, assisting in the confetti drop for the crowd. “There was an impression that something might occur; that [New Year’s Eve 1999 was] ground zero for craziness,” he reflects.
Aside from the apocalyptic anxieties, Y2K underscored a broader discomfort regarding the increasing influence of technology in everyday life. “That techno dread,” Taylor explains. “The concern that computers might recreate what happened in *War Games* and initiate a nuclear conflict. Another aspect we overlook in our amazing world of tablets and smartphones is that they were often not functional back then. We were justified in viewing [technology] with skepticism.”
—
### Then Compared to Now
Despite years of warnings, governments, banks, and industries only started to tackle Y2K seriously during the 1990s. Their strides, while delayed, were admirable. “People sprang into action,” Taylor notes. “There was a [bipartisan Senate report](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CPRT-106sprt10/pdf/GPO-CPRT-106sprt10.pdf) addressing the issue. Funds were allocated to resolve it.”
Fast forward 25 years, and Taylor observes a striking difference in how society is reacting to modern technological hurdles, especially artificial intelligence. “With Y2K, the issue was straightforward; we understood it entirely. It stemmed from not including enough digits in the date field when programming computers,” he clarifies. “In contrast, with AI, it seems we don’t fully grasp the topic at hand. There’s no consensus. Some claim AI poses the greatest risk to humanity, while others argue it barely resembles the complexity of an insect’s brain.”
Taylor expresses concern about the absence of unified action regarding AI but stops short of making doomsday predictions. “The world is perpetually ending; the end is always imminent,” he states.