3 ms·
Your interpretation of the word "backfire" is unconventional. Also, you're trivializing the challenges likely faced by the kind of venture. It's not always pos
by javert 15y ago
Your interpretation of the word "backfire" is unconventional.
Also, you're trivializing the challenges likely faced by the kind of venture. It's not always possible to find all bugs, unless you want to code in Ada and formally verify things with OCaml and are trying to fly a plane.
The problem could have been caused by a strange hardware defect, a rare bug in a library, etc.
- rhizome 15y agoTo be sure, mucking about on the stock exchanges should earn a closer comparison of QA responsibility to aeronautics.
- javert 15y agoIn my opinion, not at all. The stock exchange is an inherently risky market; everbody knows that. The only responsibility you have is to yourself and your own money. That's a far cry from aeronautics.
- rhizome 15y agoJust because an activity has risk involved doesn't mean it should be thrown to the wolves. You might also familiarize yourself with the Just World Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- jaipilot747 15y agoThank you very much for that link. It was a fascinating read to say the least.
- javert 15y agoI don't see the connection between the discussion and the just-world hypothesis.
- rhizome 15y agoOne interpretation is that the JWH means that people get what they deserve. The connection is your assertion that the markets are risky, people should know this, so quality controls are superfluous.
- Drbble 15y agoAerospace is inherently risky! The planet and skies do not submit to human authority.
- moonchrome 15y ago>The problem could have been caused by a strange hardware defect, a rare bug in a library, etc. Or competition, a disgruntled employee, etc. Just speculating but IMO it's a pretty big coincidence that it failed exactly when they did the IPO.
- bdr 15y agoYes, not to mention the two stocks it failed on.
- rabidsnail 15y agoTheir IPO might have caused a spike in trading volume on their exchange, which might have triggered the bug.
- apaprocki 15y agoCheck the graph: http://www.nanex.net/aqck/3079-2.jpg http://www.nanex.net/aqck/3079-2.jpg It happened in less than a second.
- jack12 15y agoThe NYTimes article says that the initial offering of BATS "would have been the first company to be listed as well as traded on the exchange", and the post mortem currently at the top of http://www.batstrading.com/alerts/ http://www.batstrading.com/alerts/ (no direct link that I can see) says that the A-BFZZZ shard "encountered a software bug related to IPO auctions". I read that to mean that this is the first time they've ever used their IPO-related code in production and it failed badly. So it sounds like it was the normal sort of bug, in their own code, and their own IPO directly triggered the bug.