5 ms·
As a Scala quant, it sounded like the guy was thinking about the problem analytically rather than emotionally. Then, the phrase "the public caused X" would be m
by MichaelBurge 11y ago
As a Scala quant, it sounded like the guy was thinking about the problem analytically rather than emotionally. Then, the phrase "the public caused X" would be more like how a software developer would interpret "this buffer overflow caused the attacker to gain a foothold in this 10-stage attack on some server". The determination of an appropriate scapegoat is more of a politician or PR guys' job, not a quant.
Here's another one: You're a software developer. Software developers caused Heartbleed. Why do most software developers "live in a reality distortion field where it wasn't their fault"? Probably because they don't work on SSL libraries. Should I blame you for not taking responsibility next time Cloudflare goes down, even though you might have an outside opinion on what caused it?
The user in question works at an online advertising company, not at a credit rating agency. Why do they think it 'was not their fault'? Probably because it wasn't his fault.
- MichaelBurge 11y agoI can't edit it, but that should read "Given that he's a Scala quant". I'm not a Scala quant.
- haberman 11y agoThat is a very charitable reading of that person's comment. But look at the follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168773 > Nobody adjusted the models when they produced incorrect answers because the answers weren't incorrect. They weren't the answers you like in hindsight, but they were correct insofar as the model was vetted & the input was correct. This is 100% absolving the agencies of any responsibility for the brokenness of their models. According to this person, it's the public's fault for behaving in ways that led to unrealistic ratings, and not at all the agencies' fault for having models that didn't reflect reality.