I am reminded of the (perhaps apocryphal) response of Mizuho Securities regarding whether they would fire the operator who sold 600k shares for 1 yen instead of 1 share for 600k yen: "Why would I fire someone who I had just spent [~$300 million] training to be careful?"https://twitter.com/datachick/status/952609286584025088 …
-
-
Regulator to stock exchange: "When did you become aware of that order?" "$TIME." "Who became aware first?" "$PERSON." "Why did they not countermand the order?" "Mizuho Securities sent it to us and they felt unable to overrule..." "YOU ARE THE STOCK EXCHANGE. YOU HAVE ONE JOB."
Show this thread -
(A thing that I genuinely like about engineering culture over here, heavily influenced by a certain automobile manufacturer near Nagoya, is that "andon cords" and virtual equivalents are widely, widely deployed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andon_(manufacturing) … )
Show this thread -
(It's, conceptually, a big red button which causes an expensive remediation. The important part is not the cord/button, it is the organizational expectation that, if you suspect a quality issue, you are *responsible* for pushing button and your concern *will* be addressed.)
Show this thread -
Anyhow: operator error is a thing; properly engineered applications and processes assume that operators will occasionally make mistakes and should be designed to be robust against them.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.