<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>chrismartin</author><text>Banks handle everyone&amp;#x27;s money and are high-profile targets for compromise over the network. As such, they should be obliged to keep current with best security practices as the technology evolves, not lag far behind these.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jbrooksuk</author><text>Which unfortunately costs time and money. Whilst yes, they should be up to date and secure, banks are pretty big businesses and require more time.&lt;p&gt;One day they&amp;#x27;ll catch up.</text></item><item><author>owly</author><text>YES. Force them to upgrade their weak sites!</text></item><item><author>Sir_Cmpwn</author><text>Good. Breaking their websites is the only way some people will fix their broken security.</text></item><item><author>cesarb</author><text>&amp;gt; Disable use of RC4 except for temporarily whitelisted hosts&lt;p&gt;This is the one which has the greatest chance of giving people a headache. For instance, one of the biggest banks here still uses only RC4 for its online banking site. Its top-level hostname and a few of its auxiliary hostnames are on the whitelist, but there&amp;#x27;s no guarantee that all the RC4-only auxiliary hostnames it might use for some of its functionality are on the whitelist.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Firefox 39.0 released</title><url>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/39.0/releasenotes/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Elidrake24</author><text>But that&amp;#x27;s the inherent problem; these companies are still setup for a bureaucracy that works fine in a particular area of business, but completely crumbles under the new rules of the technological age.  We shouldn&amp;#x27;t be apologetic for their resisting of change, but rather pushing them to take a long hard look at what needs to be reorganized to fit into the new paradigm.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jbrooksuk</author><text>Which unfortunately costs time and money. Whilst yes, they should be up to date and secure, banks are pretty big businesses and require more time.&lt;p&gt;One day they&amp;#x27;ll catch up.</text></item><item><author>owly</author><text>YES. Force them to upgrade their weak sites!</text></item><item><author>Sir_Cmpwn</author><text>Good. Breaking their websites is the only way some people will fix their broken security.</text></item><item><author>cesarb</author><text>&amp;gt; Disable use of RC4 except for temporarily whitelisted hosts&lt;p&gt;This is the one which has the greatest chance of giving people a headache. For instance, one of the biggest banks here still uses only RC4 for its online banking site. Its top-level hostname and a few of its auxiliary hostnames are on the whitelist, but there&amp;#x27;s no guarantee that all the RC4-only auxiliary hostnames it might use for some of its functionality are on the whitelist.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Firefox 39.0 released</title><url>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/39.0/releasenotes/</url></story>