5 ms·
Wait, the article cites Knight Capital with a straight face and doesn't bring up the whole "Whoops we lost $440 million due to bad software" [1] as a significan
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
Wait, the article cites Knight Capital with a straight face and doesn't bring up the whole "Whoops we lost $440 million due to bad software" [1] as a significant caveat to putting so much emphasis on the role of technology? That doesn't seem very contextually fair. Programmers, no matter how great, can still make costly mistakes.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-17/knight-capital-reports-net-loss-as-software-error-takes-toll-1- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-17/knight-cap...
- kasey_junk 11y agoThe Knight Capital responsible for the Knightpocalypse basically went out of business due to it, and was bought by Getco a different trading firm. Getco switched names because in some places the The Knight brand was stronger than the Getco one.
- solaarphunk 11y agoThey actually did this to reverse-IPO, giving all of the PE firms and partners a way to get liquidity since KCG was already public.
- kasey_junk 11y agoDo you know how they ended up splitting up the ownership stakes? I've been curious but never tracked it down?
- josh2600 11y agoIt was a devops error. I wrote a blog post about this once: http://blog.terminal.com/knightmare-prevention/ http://blog.terminal.com/knightmare-prevention/
- johngalt 11y agoI would draw the opposite conclusion. If bad software can cost you hundreds of millions, that places a greater emphasis on the role of technology.