4 ms·
Yeah ours was monitoring just rubber stamped it. Afterwards everyone remarked, everyone could tell they were bad just looking at what was in front of them, our
by malbs 13y ago
Yeah ours was monitoring just rubber stamped it. Afterwards everyone remarked, everyone could tell they were bad just looking at what was in front of them, our theory was she was too busy watching the breaking bad final episode or something.
- 4hthth4 13y agoIt makes me think you shouldn't allow only a single person to monitor something like that...
- drill_sarge 13y agoYes, the more people monitoring the better. But in this situation someone has to be in charge and make a decision. And nobody wants to be that guy.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoI would argue that many more people monitoring can encourage the fear of making the wrong call. "Hey, someone smarter and more experienced than me should makes sense of this." "Hey, the smart new guy is supposed to be watching this. I will look more closely later." What you want is two or three people really in charge, where the individuals are empowered to say: "I am totally confused. If someone cannot explain what is going on to me so that I understand, I am starting shutdown procedures, immediately. Do YOU know exactly what is going on?"
- jrochkind1 13y agoYou know how if the first 100 times a dialog box comes up, the correct response is to click 'ok', then people start just clicking 'ok' on every dialog box, and then the 201st one comes up "Destroy everything? [cancel] [ok], and they click 'ok' too, and don't think anything of it?
- Dylan16807 13y agoSure, you click reflexively, but you should notice the text was bad either after clicking or within a couple more clicks. Letting the first few errors through is reasonable, but letting a wall of them through without noticing anything wrong, when reading them is your job, is inexcusable.
- jrochkind1 13y agoI don't know if it's excusable or not, but it may be incompatible with typical human cognition to expect someone to be able to do that. Maybe you have to figure out a way to test people for unusually high aptitude at looking at mind-numbingly dull repetitive things over and over again, but then still being able to notice the aberrant ones. And then only put people in that job with unusually high aptitude there. Or have people only do pretty short shifts at that task. I'm pretty confident that this person wasn't unusually negligent, if you have most anyone doing that job hour after hour day after day they will lose the ability to flag the aberant stuff.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoYours is the correct viewpoint: it is incompatible with human cognition. If an alert system is not perceived as highly reliable in directing positive action, then the humans involved will inevitably disable the alert system, either by pulling out a screwdriver or rewriting their mental rubrics to ignore the messages as noise. Knight Capital is just the finance version of Three Mile Island and Deepwater Horizon -- the means to mitigate or prevent disaster were on hand, but the people in charge just dithered by the kill switch because they were confused. Well, if the people in charge are confused, that is a reason to start the emergency procedures.
- jrochkind1 13y agoin the ancestral comment here, it wasn't even an alert system! It was just "your job is to sit there all day and watch every single transaction and flag the aberrant one"!!