One thing you need to understand about programming languages, is that they're like comic book villains. They do die, but they're never completely dead. I learned COBOL for fun a few years ago, seeing it through the eyes of a modern programmer. It's unique among programming languages, I find the syntax remarkably straightforward, after you get used to some of the underlying concepts it's predicated against.
I think the language has possibilities. Especially in an age where the human computer interface has moved from keyboards to voice. It would be amazing if you could do the kinds of complex programming tasks by voice that you see in Star Trek, and I think we're only a few years off. Here, COBOL is really the only language that makes sense for the task. Well, for the most part, and barring some of the more recent additions to the language, that is. No such application exists for it, yet, but it certainly could. And something like that will certainly be both needed and wanted in the coming years.
As far as the banks go, you have to understand business. If a system works properly and needs very little maintenance, there is no business case for replacing it. It's not like anyone runs websites with COBOL these days. Typically, it's the language of big iron mainframes, that were designed to last forever. If the current group of COBOL programmers does die out, it makes sense to train new ones. There's still a fair amount of demand for it, which will appeal to the mercenary nature of modern programmers.
I don't think that's an outlandish suggestion. We pay people to learn new things all time, even programming languages. To pretend that banks are somehow different than any other big organization, anywhere else, in any other industry is silly. Let's just call this what it is, stop worrying about it, and move on.
Obama hacked, surveilled and stalked and outright harassed a reporter who had successfully dug up dirt on the Obama Administration and made them look bad under the guise of "national security" to silence him.
Who, Sharyl Attkisson? (He launched a cyberattack on her backspace key to get it stuck so it would delete an article on Benghazi she was writing. Thanks, Obama.)
Depends on the business case for one or the other. In this case, the bank may well have decided 'the less than, literally, 600-in-7.5-billion chance of having somebody exceed this age range is less important to us than stopping incorrect payments going out to people with ages that are far FAR beyond 'wildly improbable.''
In other cases, it would be far better to have multiple incorrect accounts than to miss one valid but wildly outlier account.
A quick google search shows that there are, by the most wild estimate, 600 people on the planet, at most, who are over the age of 110. More like 150 to 300.
Raising the age to 130 just means there's an extra 20 years of potential pension fraud or incorrect payments.
I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra