[–] awildbanannaphone 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
You aren't a programmer you work with G code... im not trying to be a giant dick here but your field and what you have typed gives me zero confidence you have basic understanding of low level machine code (as in compiler and assebly) which is where the fuckery would go around in these ballot machines.
Further assuming it is in the code is also retarded. You could design chip to switch votes at semi random intervals. My uneducated guess says its actually in the hardware, not the software.
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
G code is a small part of my job.
I primarily write statistical analysis routines, gauge feedback handling, and spindle and axis drive motor load monitoring, and turn that into api calls to the machine to tweak feeds and speeds in real-time, and as well as direct manipulation of offsets. I jump back and forth between VB and C for this. As I stated, I write computer software in my personal life as well, including a small cad program for a customer that would generate g code from circles and lines, and a title that was carried by the Macininist's Ready Reference for a number of years. In my early years, I took an assembly language course on the 6809 processor, which uses a near-identical code set to the 80x86 architecture.
I'm not trying to be a giant dick, but I do know a little about the subject. Don't state your position by calling me retarded, because your discussion assumes I don't know anything and is therefore pointless in its focus. Use better rhetoric.
As I said, the magnitude is the point... a simple g code program goes through a rigorous process to ensure it does exactly what it should with no potential for deviating, and the program is not only transparent, it is documented in small words to prevent any misunderstanding from people who can't read g code.
Why is expecting anything less from voting software a bad thing?
[–] awildbanannaphone 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
first off. from your post there was no way for me to gauge that you have any experience more what you initially claimed. Hence why i called you a retard... You are correct that it should go through a rigorous UAT
With that being said. My point about this being in the hardware is still valid and thats exactly how you would get through UAT... could literally have a little MEMS device in the hardware that is turned on when in the vicinity of a certain frequency (especially something in the 5g spectrum)
But tbh they probably didnt do it that well. its was too rushed. so in this case your OG post is right and honestly i hope thats the case. because easier to catch these treasonous bastards.
[–] Amerikaner 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
As a software engineer I’m sure you’re aware of the verification and validation process, and how it’s applied to software development. With something as quantifiable during testing as the number of correct vs incorrect votes, it’s inconceivable that this is not intentional.
[–] 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.
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
They should be some of the most error free software that our society has produced.
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.
[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If every single educated voter values these parameters
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 box rules" 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.
[–] Lagmonster 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
You have commited the crime of thinking for yourself. Now be punished
[–] LionElTrump 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Dominion was pumping out nightly updates leading up to the election.
crazy
[–] 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.