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 →
[–] 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
That is what I was hoping was the point that people would get from my post. You just use better words than I do!
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.