In my personal life I write software for the manufacturing industry. Professionally, I am an engineer, and write code for computer-operated equipment (lathes and mills, commonly known as CNC machines.)
For a sense of scale, let me say that most CNC programs are under 250 lines of code. In addition to controlling the cutting tools, the programs will check for operator input mistakes: Tools can only be adjusted within a narrow range, anything outside that range and the machine won't run. Did the operator slow it down to check something and forget to turn it back to 100%? Machine won't run. And so on. Idiot-proofing, dimensional checks and feedback, torque monitoring, etc.
Before we even let the customer see their new machine, we have already run the machine for 8 hours of hands-off auto cycling of the program. We have also run each cutting tool through enough parts to ensure the cutting conditions are optimal. Then for the customer we run an additional hands-off production run of 8 hours or 35 pieces (whichever is greater) and then do a 100% inspection of every feature out to 5 decimal places, followed by some statistical analysis to measure capability. Once the customer is happy, we ship the machine and repeat this on their floor. Then we spend a few days going over the statistical analysis, then a week of training for their operators. Only then is it ready for producing parts that make sure your car door latches with 18lbs of force rather than 19lbs.
Oh, yeah... we provide the computer code to the customer as well, every line commented for clarity.
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?
-+Edit+- I should clarify... I am not claiming that voting software and CNC programs are similar in architecture, language, layout, complexity, or structure. My point is, if a fairly simple g-code program and its performance is vetted so thoroughly by the end user, at multiple points in its development and prove out, then why in the hell isn't the software that determines how my vote is recorded given the same level of scrutiny? I didn't realize my example was too convoluted for so many snowflakes.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Ozfer 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago (edited ago)
All the source code for casinos needs to be given to regulatory agencies and approved individually. Every single game requires source code analysis and testing. So does every machine before being allowed on a Casino floor. When in a casino each software package on the machine can be verified using signatures and hashes.
Beyond this since voting is about transparency and public elections ALL source code should be open source and inspectable by anyone. We need to prevent foreign and local interference. They also need to rule voting is not proprietary. Everyone knows how to add votes correctly and there is no trade secret.
Also no casino machine runs Bill Gates/NSA windows OS.
[–] 26291020? 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
yeah, good point. This stuff needs to be open for inspection. Same with the sotware they use to justify lockdowns
[–] It_was_the_juice 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
What software are they using to justify lockdowns? All I can tell is they use some shitty data to justify a political decision.
[–] Nekketsu ago
I wouldn't be surprised if some casinos out there use fuckin' nuclear technology to keep their money safe from someone getting the "jackpot". Anyone working in anything betting related tends to make a lot of money at the cost of their brain cells from having to deal with so many people.