Robinhood Users Looted AGAIN & The Virus. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
"THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS"
We live right now in a world of "faith on the plausible proper funcionality of systems".
Leaving aside non intended failures, and we have many of those in these times of fast technological advance, we could talk about intended failures directly or indirectly created by conflicts of interests.
PLAUSIBLE REASONABLE FAILURE OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS. WE ARE SO SORRY.
Affecting Finance
These “plausible reasonable failures” are particularly common when there is money around.
Some said that lottery is a tax on those that do not know math.
Others say that finance is a tax on those that are not aware of conflict of interests.
As an example, an exchange could fail to provide consistent data, or reduce its rate in "specific times" of increased volatility, or find that as they are unaccountable for technical things under the plausible reasonable failure of complex systems, they can simply stop or disconnect the exchange getting incredible profits for it.
Just today Robinhoood accounts have been plundered and a hundred thousand retail victims are praying to the heavens for someone they can talk about their sudden unexpected “but technically reasonable” losses. It was not long ago that in their platform, retail of course, who else, suffered in their pocket great losses as the platform had technical problems in the middle of a great crash.
It is the same matter that we have seen one time an another in crypto, in icos, exchange failures, hacks.
- Sorry we were hacked. You have lost half of your money. - We can promise you it will never happen again.
The same happens with central banks, with money issuance, extra fines or penalties transacting with your bank that strangely NEVER falls in their side, or of course the consistent crashes on the economy affecting millions of lives. They are normal. “It’s life” !!!
Affecting Reality. The PostVirus New-Normal.
In the same way, under the plausible complexity of dealing with the virus, or under the plausible complexity of considering conflicts of interest on press ownership, under the plausible complexity of considering conflicts of interest on supranational representatives, under the plausible doubt of countries and their virus dealing we have seen our lifes shaped to what they called the NEW NORMAL.
In this new normal, there are already some steps (LOCK STEPS) to control even the architecture of our homes: doors, cars, distancing, health metrics falling under poor medical criticism based upon the plausible acceptance of a "there is much confusion about this" mantra citizens get locked or not.
MEASUREMENT IS IMPORTANT
Who accounts for the inner workings of datasets today? Is it standardized? Is it properly audited ? Do we have methods to account for hundreds of circumstances that affect our lives that rely on more and more columns being crossed every second that nobody will be able to check or consider because it is 1, proprietary, 2, selected by very confusing algorithms whose predictions might not model reality appropriately.
If we do not demand proper data sources and data governance, some will try to get benefits from that uncovered area. They are already doing it. We need auditing. We need accountancy. We need proper data governance. We need LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY on data as data is already affecting our lives.
THE DEVILS IN MOVING BEHIND THE GREY CLOUD OF PLAUSIBILITY.
We need accountancy for those that allow the system to fail.
We need real responsibility when systems and institutions fail, but not on a GREY area that is clear or not depending on how much the press shouts about it.
Some studying response to critical emergencies talk about how increased complexity increases the risk of highly increased catastrophes.
Others with similar theories talk about how systems are composed of hundreds of subsystems that should work under specific conditions and when one fails it exponentially adds to the risk of those depending on it. Although some might fail here and there, the more complex, the higher the chance of added consequences. We need to PAY ATTENTION to those ranges.
We need SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS based on Key Point Indicators and proper or unproper functional ranges. This needs to be enforced on institutions, laws, rights, money.
Example:
If financial institutions do not manage to keep their function under specific ranges they should PAY FOR IT.
If unemployment level goes out of a specific range someone has to PAY FOR IT.
If national or supranational organizations fail to defend Press Decentralization on some specific ranges they should PAY FOR IT.
What is going to happen when behind proprietary algorithms, that of course a company does not want anyone else to see, citizens don't get a job, a credit score, or they die at the hospital
This is already happening.
But seems we are going one step ahead.
Until now we had doors that opened or not, lifts that worked appropriately or not. post offices that worked with acceptable regularity. We have been working with doors, chairs, our own voice and peer to peer communication for basic deals.
Now thanks to the virus they want to make all this digital and disinter-mediated between different people, organizations and even countries and legislation in this new reality.
Doors, lifts, sensor devices that will leave you out of a building, or not allow you to get close or far from others.
GO FAST AND BREAK THINGS vs REDUCING CHAOS
Some say that in the next 30 years we are going to deal with difficult matters. Some argue that the climate, others the reduced age of permafrost in the arctic and its impact on salinity. Others about the acidity of the ocean. Those others about 60% species lost in the last 50 years. Or those behind about how in the 70s all fisheries where in the coast and now it is far harder to find fishes. We get fishes and drop garbage. Add social problems. Add technological increased rate. Add economical experiments like negative interest rate. Add social tensions. Add demographic and aging problems. Pandemics.
RISK, RISK, RISK and Chaos.
Maybe we need to decide if we want to continue in this race to “GO FAST AND BREAK THINGS” adding more and more risk that always gets paid by those that cannot defend themselves or if we should try TO REDUCE RISK.
That is also happening, we see how we are transitioning to other types of fuel for cars, the virus from a good point of view seems to have reduced some impact on nature.
CONCLUSION
If we do not add some consolidating checkpoints, if we cannot rely on anything for granted, if we keep adding more "go fast and break things that the risk is paid by others", and if in top of all this we redo everything that already was working over weak foundations that relies on “conflict of interests” we are adding more and more chances for failure to a system that is already very complex and in coming years that already will bring a great deal of chaos.
In a world that is already too complex it might be difficult to regulate every single detail and a KPI and SLA agreement should be considered, specially as something has changed, things are not happening anymore due the destiny or the evolution of history, they are being Engineered proactively and there might be more and more conflicts of interest taking us to those subsystems we talked before crossing their proper ranges and creating chaos everywhere. We need ranges, proper certified measurements and service level agreements enforcing them.
Because that is precisely what seems to have happened. Failures in proper OBJECTIVE measurements, considerations of the virus initially, it's development, it's impact, recommended actions, proper measured response including economy, etc. Subsystem crossing subsystem crossing subsystem creating a greater problem. [1 to 13]
Other day. Are Conflicts of Interset in Institutions and Governance a System Risk ?
[1] 1:20:300 Law - Cummulative Risk can cause catastrophic events
[2] 1:20:300 Law - MASSIVE disasters are coded on the negligence of minor defections
[3] Domino Theory - Catastrophes are born from three steps: 1/ Human component. 2/ Flows caused by the first element. 3/ Unsafe actions caused by the second event. Only the third can be corrected with education and strengthening safety.
[4] The Risk Society : Society produces risk accompanied by socially produced wealth.
[5] The Risk Society : Similarity between Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, Financial Crisis in 1980, ...
[6] The Normal Accident Theory : Unanticipated Occurance of multiple interactions from multiple failures
[7] The High Reliability Theory : Based on researchs on Nasa, Nuclear Industry, Aviation, sofisticated quality controls settle safety culture. Continuous education and training prevent disaster.
[8] Incubation Theory: Major Accidents or disasters occur after an incubation period or as a result of missing or overlooked persistent signs.
[9] Rasumussen Dynamic Safety Model: System will work well inside an envelope but fail on the borders. e.g: Economic failure, unacceptable grwoth, unacceptable performance.
[10] System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes: Systems are a hierarchy of control based on adaptive feedback mechanisms. Failure of control system safety produces accident in design and operation.
[11] FRAM Model: "Risk and safety analysis should try to understand the nature of variability of everyday performance and use to identify conditions that may lead to both positive and adverse outcomes.
[12] Chaos Theory
[13] Entropy. 2nd Thermodynamic.