Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to various creditors last August

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by goatcode on Thursday February 18, 2021 @02:04PM (#26184054)

I think I understand now: the software was doing the wrong thing. They thought they were making one transaction, but they made a different one. One wonders how long that had been going on for, and how it could have been going on for so long.

Thanks for the explanation. It saddens me how brutal people here are in response to a misunderstanding, judging by the downvotes, but oh well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by anyfoo on Thursday February 18, 2021 @03:43PM (#26185240)

It saddens you? You made a scathing misjudgement about the involved people without having read the article, or even the rest of the thread here. I don't think it's the downvoters that are "brutal" here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by goatcode on Thursday February 18, 2021 @03:53PM (#26185350)

My point has illustration here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by jumelles on Thursday February 18, 2021 @04:25PM (#26185824)

Calling three separate people "under-qualified" is a bit more than a misunderstanding.

[ Parent | on HN ]