Unlike all of the "modern tech company" problems which are never ignored and only solved when someone's problem goes viral on social media.

They're a big company, some groups are better than others, some customers get more attention than others.

So basically like any other medium to large company? This doesn't sound unique in the slightest.

I would think that the company being a securities exchange would factor into the analysis. Don't you?

How does them being a securities exchange in any way affect the analysis of their software engineering practices? They're not some special snowflake, they can suffer the same software engineering and business process issues as other companies.

>> They're not some special snowflake

But they are. The consequence of a one-day or one-hour shutdown on their system is exponentially worse than most any other. I would expect them to have more rigorous systems, including more rigorous attention to development. Comparing the NYSE to any other business is like calling Fort Knox just like any other bank vault.

I disagreed with you until: "...like calling Fort Knox just like any other bank vault."

Interesting point that teeters on false equivalence. I think AWS or Azure might make for a better analogy. Your point identifies the inherent risk of actually operating a platform business. A bank vault is (mostly) synonymous with Cloud, in this context. If a vault is robbed or a cloud goes offline, losses extend beyond the business which inherently compounds the severity of downtime.

Linear loss vs. parabolic loss.

But if a cloud goes offline, there is damage to the economy linear to the length and breadth of the outage. Sure, there are losses to businesses serviced by the cloud's users, but they'll bounce back, even if a day-long outage was so severe as to temporarily ground flights and halt supply chains.

If a stock exchange executes trades at incorrect prices, even for a short amount of time, all of a sudden you're in a kind of non-linear sigmoid regime, where investor confidence can suddenly tip into panic selling and recessions can be triggered. Thankfully, that didn't happen here, but it could have. If you're going to give a company that power, you should better hope that they're held to higher standards than most dysfunctional tech organizations!

"If a stock exchange executes trades at incorrect prices, even for a short amount of time, all of a sudden you're in a kind of non-linear sigmoid regime, where investor confidence can suddenly tip into panic selling and recessions can be triggered."

This is false equivalence and slippery slope.

No company or organization is immune to bad business practices.

Them being a securities exchange does not somehow provide immunity from developing rigorous systems which have oversights, or make bureaucracy magically go away.

Likewise, the impact of an outage being more extreme does not mean the people there are infallible. Things slip through. Especially random customer requests being bounced around from team to team, the thing in question.

Then somehow we are in agreement. It is my impression that you were saying precisely the opposite, that why should we focus on NYSE's bad practices over others'? Well the answer to that question is, this is a thread about NYSE under a post about NYSE. And besides, we should be, if anything, more scrutinizing of their practices because of the outsize effect that disruptions in their services would have on the global economy.

> like calling Fort Knox just like any other bank vault.

Main difference being that most bank vaults aren't actually empty. ;)

No they aren't.

There's far more critical snowflakes out there... FAA Airspace management, a medical radiation device, avionics in an aircraft, and facebook.