Hacker News Reader

Comment by gav | Hacker News Reader

Such a move would cause a dramatic shift, but not a good one: it would cause the best and most experienced people to leave for less risky work.

It’s like any contract negotiation, you’re always able to push for more favorable terms, but eventually you’re just weeding out people who aren’t smart enough to walk away.

View on HN

It might also put some brakes on rampant "disrupt" capitalist overdrive we're in. I honestly can't think of any tech that I NEED to progress badly enough to compromise customer safety.

Bear in mind that the ultimate root cause of this mess wasn't "capitalist overdrive" but an ill-thought-out intervention by the EU forcing Lloyds TSB to split up because they thought there wasn't enough competition in British banking, without properly considering the practical implications of their systems having become completely integrated over the two decades that they were one company. To put this in some context, the article meantions problems with internet banking - that didn't exist yet when the two were last independent companies. The first, very broken, version of SSL had only been released a few months before their merger.

„Too big to fail” is the last thing we need. And I’m not sure how the SSL part in consumer-facing part of IT relates to a botched internal data migration.

Yes, EU is the cause of all British ills... </sarcasm>

Or perhaps it was the usual incompetent planning of the owners of TSB - banks splitting up is not a new or impossible thing, you know. And complexity of IT systems is the most absurd argument against splitting up LloydsTSB - why would any regulator consider this at all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com