[–] Smokybubbles 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Why would the government want to be accountable to all the peon fucktard citizens? Guess how many hundreds of billions of dollars go into contractor black projects for strippers and caviar as they screw around doing nothing?
[–] LionElTrump 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Dominion was pumping out nightly updates leading up to the election.
crazy
[–] Lagmonster 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
You have commited the crime of thinking for yourself. Now be punished
[–] dukey 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
I've written 10k+ software programs. Voting software must be some of the easiest software to write. The majority of the code would simply be the GUI. Easy to write, easy to test. If there are 'bugs' it's either the system has been compromised somehow, remote hack running on the machine altering the internal program state, or someone is manually fudging the output of the program, or the program itself has been written to flip votes.
[–] Bobwillneverdie 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago (edited ago)
Ive shown this logic to liberals with an Arduino with 3 buttons, one adds a vote to A, another adds a vote to B, the third displays the votes. Then just show them how changing one or two lines, you can easily change a 5/5 vote out of 10 into a 7/3 out of 10. Then explain to them that there's no rule forcing election machines to be open source so that the people can audit for the potential fraud (or even for bugs).
Funny thing Mr. OP..... I also make CNC machines. /salute
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Now this is very interesting... my latest hobby, I have three Raspberry pis. /salute
Our new machine orders tanked earlier this year, so our entire company went on 2-week rotating furloughs. My first 2 weeks off, I did this.
[–] prairie 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
Doesn't it seem like voting software, which likely is thousands of lines of code, should be made open-source and go through some sort of approval process before being used for real? Isn't this software vetted or tested or examined at all?
Wouldn't matter. No way to prove to each voter that the same code is running on the machine itself, and nothing extra. It always comes down to experts claiming it's secure.
The only safe voting software is pencil and paper. Optical-scan count them, and do a random sample human count check to be sure the figures aren't way off. All with observers. One election day, none of this mail-in bullshit.
[–] chirogonemd 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Great post. I'd just highlight the issue of scope here. There is an argument that your clientelle and their needs are highly specialized, so generalizing the methodology you use across the board might be inappropriate.
But, I'd reply to that by questioning how much we value the performance of our votes, and the accuracy of the system in which they perform.
If every single educated voter values these parameters as much as your industry clientele values the parameters of their expensive tool, then we have a duty to make these things transparent.
Given the importance of the voting process to this nation's overall function as a representative republic, I'd say, um, abso-fucking-lutely these software should be taken as seriously as one a corporate client might order.
They should be some of the most error free software that our society has produced. At least up to the quality of strict industry standards.
[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I like the "educated" qualifier, but that's not what we have, nor is the accuracy of the system a concern for a large percentage of voters. Winning is the desired performance, and "thinking outside the
boxrules" can achieve that result.There's a perspective out there that sees "autistically adhering to a set of arbitrary rules" as a losing strategy, and essentially crippling your chance of winning. The importance of winning is that you can then adjust the rules as you wish.
Counting the opinions and votes of every person only works in a homogeneous society, which we no longer have. Our society is now a battleground between the original inhabitants and the invaders, and the literally crazy thing is that the invaders are allowed to change our society as they wish, once their invasion numbers are large enough.
Voting is a weapon in a multicultural society, and the side that ties their hands behind their backs in the war is going to lose. The side that fires the most bullets is going to win, when the only criteria that matters is having the largest number.
[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Excellent insight.
The concept of voting as a weapon in a multicultural society is so accurate.
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
That is what I was hoping was the point that people would get from my post. You just use better words than I do!
[–] LeeDoverwood ago
LOL. You techies never did really understand how to explain it to the rest of us but that's ok, we still love you.
[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yeah, it is a great point that I imagine is lost on most normies who are listening to these reports about software glitches. I'd want to say stop, and think about that for a second.
Given the significance of an election, wouldn't you imagine these things were being tested and refined all of the time?
How do we get to election day and have malfunctioning software, not just that but as frequently as we are seeing.
It strains common sense to think that this would happen naturally, as in pure incompetence or something. Maybe. Maybe since the government doesn't collect money directly for this surety there is no incentive for them to do this quality assurance? I don't know. It might just get pulled into the general problem of our tax dollars not serving our interests.