Re:$444B 'Fat Finger' Trade Crashed Stocks.Now Citigroup Is ...
by throwaway1105q on Tuesday May 28, 2024 @05:35PM
(#40505870)
My point was that 2 is really not enough to end the world. Damn their money, it's their problem. Launching nukes should require 200, not 2.
Re:$444B 'Fat Finger' Trade Crashed Stocks.Now Citigroup Is ...
by Arnt on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @05:07AM
(#40509948)
Suppose it actually required twenty, or 200. In that case, would the relevant organisation publish the truth or rather lie and say "two"? I think lying makes a lot of sense. Telling the truth would be like saying "go ahead and kill the most accessible of these 20/200 people".
So I don't think the "2" is very likely to be true.
Re:$444B 'Fat Finger' Trade Crashed Stocks.Now Citigroup Is ...
by throwaway1105q on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @05:36AM
(#40510123)
It could be 200 out of 20k, or something like that. Though yes, you're right, lying makes sense.
Re:$444B 'Fat Finger' Trade Crashed Stocks.Now Citigroup Is ...
by appplication on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @09:24AM
(#40511732)
It takes more than two. Two is enough to launch, but other silos have override authority. So if two people went renegade they could still be shut down.
Wonder how much the loss was. Surely more than $78 million. Citigroup doesn't say the policy has changed (substantively) so I guess the advantages of this… uh… nimbleness must be in nine digits too.