Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

TBH, I don't really think that the author of this post screwed up. There's a lot of self-flagellation, but, ultimately, Chase offered accounts. The company used the services written on the tin. It's far from obvious that one needs to show up in person to close bank accounts. (I've certainly closed bank accounts without showing up in person, or, hah, at least I think I have.) It's far from obvious that a bank wouldn't be able to handle large amounts of money without confusedly celebrating and then condemning the poor fool who types the information into the computer. And ultimately, it all got fixed, and the only serious hitch to fixing it was the fact that for some weird-ass reason the bank had some rule that it couldn't issue a cashiers check unless there was a wad of cash that size in a particular branch, which is completely nutso given that 99.999999% of bank money is just bits anyway.


Yeah the "poor fool who types the information into the computer", or "Alex" in this case, is really the most enlightening thing in the story for me. It's amazing that this person who has exactly zero impact on account sizes... is rewarded for and takes credit for account sizes.


people are rewarded for things outside of their control everyday. people are crushed for things outside of their control everyday


Maybe he did in that he shouldn't have used Chase :p




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: