TooBrokeToBeg
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
64
Submissions
114
Member since
May 18
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
> if you're worried about organized gangs replacing a thousand ballot boxes on your election day, you have more problems than voting systems.
The US certainly does. Should we throw up our hands and call it a non-issue? I don't think so.
Comment · 8 years ago
Maybe the "hero" shouldn't be throwing insults on twitter like a child. I thought the insult was well considered because, in context, the diver was going after kids. It's a sly kind of funny that someone from another country might think is very funny.
Comment · 8 years ago
> Nothing will change because no one addressing or discussing the underlying causes
What exactly are you describing? I don't see the same world you do. These stories are top concern and referenced in almost every forum from niche game communities to political discourse (ie everywhere). The underlying causes are assessed and measured in various countries (eg http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girl...) and is a topic of serious discussion. Seriously, what are you talking about, that you think it's being ignored in any fashion?
Comment · 8 years ago
This implies they can be different with the same versions.
Comment · 8 years ago
> the more generalized term morality
Applied ethics, are what most people mean when talking about Ethics. They are industry specific and defined by the industry. Normative ethics are near equivalent to morality. Meta-ethics are what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson like to argue about.
Comment · 8 years ago
> Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works
That wasn't the assertion made, nor related directly to the assertion I responded to. Having an understanding of "how it works" is a weak way of couching a ton of assumptions without explaining what you mean. There's no point in trying to argue about what's in your head.
The statement I take issue with is:
> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
Yes. How they work at a cursory level of practical operation and effect, is less sophisticated than any cellphone since flip-phones.
Comment · 8 years ago
> The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position
Try telling that to the boss of your boss. Authority does not birth from knowledge. Compared to what you learn i school, processes and practices guide the vast majority of the decisioning you make day-to-day.
Comment · 8 years ago
I don't understand why this is so interesting, as it doesn't seem to be anything about regression per se.
A userland tool supported functionality that it can't anymore, because it isn't available in a new kernel. This is not surprising, as people find ways to access and change data outside of published APIs all the time and they get patched away. The userland author said that the kernel upgrade would break old versions of the tool. So what?
Comment · 8 years ago
> Because voting softwares don't solve any real problem while creating a horde of its own
It solves some problems that have been introduced over time in most election systems. Primarily, time to count/verify, ease of access and verifiability. To say that paper doesn't have these problems shows a lack of understanding or a willful intent to mislead. The boxes of uncounted votes from the Bush/Gore election (https://www.theacru.org/horace_cooper_bush_v_gore_redux/) were a watershed moment that could have affected change beyond the locality.
> Paper ballot is a perfect technology once you introduce optical readers, and when in doubt, you can always re-count everything again.
There are weaknesses with transport or tampering the same as any mechanical recording or electronic recording.
It's important to narrow the intent of a typical modern voting system, with "should haves" rather than hand waving away useful tools.
* Votes should have only been counted from voting membership (registered voters, for example).
* The intent (choices)/member information should have confidence that this data is opaque to inspection without a private/public key respectively. Yes, voters would have to generate their own, as that's an attack vector.
* A voting member should have the ability to track that the vote was counted at all in a given race via a reversible process, which would necessarily include the public and private key.
> You can't get that kind of transparency with voting software.
You can, but the US wont. It's an important distinction that is patently obvious.
Today, most vote tracking systems are electronic, although the ballot was paper. What's the point of half the process being paper? The US government is too inefficient, demotivated, and lacking the impetus to retrain the populace to make any system that is reliable.
Comment · 8 years ago
Why is half the blog post about SQLite? Use SQLite, because everyone has or will. Yea, got it.
Comment · 8 years ago
> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
> Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.
That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
> The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).
Comment · 8 years ago
This story was part of a news report sourced by the daughter of a general on NBC. I saw it between 1987ish (I may be off by a year).
> The project never recovered from this ignominious retreat, and it was canceled in 1944.
It was "cancelled" after a shockingly effective test because the first A-bomb was going to be ready. Multiple projects were going on in parallel. Because bat-instigated fire was still an uncontrollable and unpredictable force to unleash on a population, it was wisely cancelled (the research kept, which is all that mattered) in favor of a more pointed and well-understood system. A big targeted explosion.
Comment · 8 years ago
Just because a candidate had a stated (or misstated or unstated) viewpoint doesn't mean a vote for that candidate is a vote for that viewpoint. That's not how any representative-elected political system has ever worked.
Comment · 8 years ago
Your whole "easy" solution is not a solution. You just avoid the condition and expect it's solved.
Not deluded at all. Sorry if you didn't get it. It's very strange that puritanical adherence of America has been rolled back (mostly) but the pedo label is still so toxic in American culture that it's assumed that other cultures share the same values.