On: The Financial Times has had an error on its “Marke...

[dmix]

Did you not read the article? Most of the post was about how the data being wrong wasn’t the big deal it’s that they shouldnt have the numbers section at all since it means no one reads it.

The fact FT messed up by automating it and not doing basic QA is a signal but it’s not the whole story. A few extra pages for nostalgia reasons, style, and a few hardcore fans is hardly a big burden on a product. But who knows. Maybe it is useless.

[raverbashing → dmix]

And basic QA usually checks for things that should be there, not the other way around.

You don't want your QA to break every time a new data source is added

You can't check to see something you don't know is not there without losing a ton of flexibility

[haswell → dmix]

I’m just dense today, apparently.