It's a bit more than the fact that "overseeing paper ballot counting is within the abilities of far more individuals than overseeing online voting". It's that I don't *need* to check my individual result for a paper count. A big box of paper ballots is emptied in front of lots of people and lots of people then set to work counting. And other people check their counts. And check the sums when the counts from various boxes are added. There's no need to provide traceability of an individual vote because the conceptual model is different from an online vote: I physically place my paper ballot in the box which is in plain view of lots of people who all keep each other honest, and every step from then on is also in plain view of lots of people who keep each other honest. And it can all easily be recounted.
Don't you see the fundamental difference? An error at an ATM is checkable by you because it affects your bank balance. You know in advance what the right answer should be. An error (or deliberate falsification) of your vote count in an election is not checkable by you because you don't know in advance what the right answer should be when it's summed with all the other counts. This is an insuperable distinction.
"Sure, you can trust this public key generator. Course you can" "Of course no-one has linked your public key to your universal identifier number. You can totally trust us on that" "Absolutely, what you see on the screen in front of you when you search for a universal identity number really reflects the reality of how your vote was (or was not) counted" etc
There is *no* way to verify your vote was counted correctly with online voting. It's conceptually impossible -- at the end of the day, you're always reduced to trusting that the thing on the screen in front of you in some way corresponds to reality and isn't just telling you what you want to hear.
What's worse is, quite a lot of quite clever people -- certainly much cleverer than the average voter -- are heavily invested in saying that you can, in fact, verify an online vote reliably. So they create and describe complex and elaborate protocols that they solemnly swear (or fervently believe) are 100% effective. But an average voter can't begin to know whether the protocols are effective. The complexity of these systems is well beyond their comprehension -- which is no slur on the average voter, I include myself in that category. Ultimately, we're still reduced to being asked to put our faith in a black box coupled with various people saying "trust us, it's totes legit".
If this problem were really so hard to resolve, it would be an issue in every country. But it's not. The volume of robocalls in European countries is orders of magnitudes lower than in the US. I get maybe one every couple of months. That suggests to me the issue is much more one of political will and regulatory teeth than it is about technical challenge.
Someone can unlock your phone by pointing it at your face, perhaps while you are asleep, even with the Apple system.
Confidently wrong. I like your style!
"When a face is detected, Face ID confirms attention and intent to unlock by detecting that your eyes are open and directed at your device" FaceID security white paper
You make sure that Facebook is not part of the government. Because governments can be totalitarian, but Facebook doesn't have an army or a police force or jails.
No-one claims they're 100% safe. Not the government, not medics, and not the manufacturers. They specifically warn of a bunch of risks, on package inserts that look like this: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/...
And they're given a liability carve-out because they're at risk of strategic lawsuits designed to shut them down, orchestrated by a coalition of the dumb and the fuckers.
No, they really don't. They're not free to abuse, rape, torture, starve their children, for example. It's not obvious they ought to be free to withhold vaccination and put their children in danger, either.
What you have is all of us selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. The pottage contained longer life for now, better health for now, somewhat greater happiness for now. The birthright was a functioning climate and a planet free of coal ash, mercury, etc.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
What does "your loss" even mean in this context? It's not about my loss or your gain. It's about an effective means to counter virulent ideas and specifically counter their spread. Which your proposed solution of reductio ad absurdum patently is not, even though you think it's worked for you.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
Sane rational policy is "pushing the ridiculous to the max", is it? And people dying from exposure to viruses are symptoms and not a problem? Keeping it classy and stupid. Congrats!
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Never mind. What is bollocks is not the idea that TLAs have been bought. What is bollocks is the idea that because some TLAs have sometimes been bought, there is some logical chain that means Amazon should be obliged to sell crocks of shit written by anti-vaxxers. The implication of your raising the fact that TLAs have sometimes been bought is that we shouldn't trust anything they touch. If we don't trust them on vaccines, why trust them on central lines, on whether adenosine is safe and effective, on infection control safeguards, etc etc?
I tell you what, bright boy: if you're so sure that Marsh v Alabama is relevant, why don't you try suing Amazon for impinging on free speech with its T&Cs for posting content, and see how far you get? I could do with a laugh.
If your video isn't on Youtube, does it really exist?
Yes. It really exists. There are other platforms. You can host your own website. But that won't get you as big a potential audience as YouTube? Do me a fucking favour. There's a shit ton of content on YouTube with views in the dozens or fewer. The platform is no guarantee you'll be heard. You have to have something to say that interests other people, without being sufficiently obnoxious to get yourself chucked off.
YouTube is not the public square, any more than Fox or Carnegie Hall. You're foolish to think otherwise. It's a privately owned space and the owner sets the rules. It provides access to larger audiences, just like Fox or Carnegie Hall, but you're not guaranteed a slot, just like Fox or Carnegie Hall.
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc, but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
Oooh, ooh, I've got another idea for how you can get a virulent idea to survive beside persecuting it. Wanna hear?
You can get a virulent idea to survive by promoting it too!
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
I genuinely cannot tell if you are being stupid or ironic with your spelling of the final word in your sentence. What is it Reacher likes to say? "Hope for the best, plan for the worst".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bit more than the fact that "overseeing paper ballot counting is within the abilities of far more individuals than overseeing online voting". It's that I don't *need* to check my individual result for a paper count. A big box of paper ballots is emptied in front of lots of people and lots of people then set to work counting. And other people check their counts. And check the sums when the counts from various boxes are added. There's no need to provide traceability of an individual vote because the conceptual model is different from an online vote: I physically place my paper ballot in the box which is in plain view of lots of people who all keep each other honest, and every step from then on is also in plain view of lots of people who keep each other honest. And it can all easily be recounted.
Don't you see the fundamental difference? An error at an ATM is checkable by you because it affects your bank balance. You know in advance what the right answer should be. An error (or deliberate falsification) of your vote count in an election is not checkable by you because you don't know in advance what the right answer should be when it's summed with all the other counts. This is an insuperable distinction.
"Sure, you can trust this public key generator. Course you can"
"Of course no-one has linked your public key to your universal identifier number. You can totally trust us on that"
"Absolutely, what you see on the screen in front of you when you search for a universal identity number really reflects the reality of how your vote was (or was not) counted"
etc
There is *no* way to verify your vote was counted correctly with online voting. It's conceptually impossible -- at the end of the day, you're always reduced to trusting that the thing on the screen in front of you in some way corresponds to reality and isn't just telling you what you want to hear.
What's worse is, quite a lot of quite clever people -- certainly much cleverer than the average voter -- are heavily invested in saying that you can, in fact, verify an online vote reliably. So they create and describe complex and elaborate protocols that they solemnly swear (or fervently believe) are 100% effective. But an average voter can't begin to know whether the protocols are effective. The complexity of these systems is well beyond their comprehension -- which is no slur on the average voter, I include myself in that category. Ultimately, we're still reduced to being asked to put our faith in a black box coupled with various people saying "trust us, it's totes legit".
Surely the "recipient pays" model doesn't still exist in the US??
If this problem were really so hard to resolve, it would be an issue in every country. But it's not. The volume of robocalls in European countries is orders of magnitudes lower than in the US. I get maybe one every couple of months. That suggests to me the issue is much more one of political will and regulatory teeth than it is about technical challenge.
Someone can unlock your phone by pointing it at your face, perhaps while you are asleep, even with the Apple system.
Confidently wrong. I like your style!
"When a face is detected, Face ID confirms attention and intent to unlock by detecting that your eyes are open and directed at your device"
FaceID security white paper
Yes.
And you can read about it in the very same report.
https://www.apple.com/supplier...
A bang-up-to-date joke! Nice
You make sure that Facebook is not part of the government. Because governments can be totalitarian, but Facebook doesn't have an army or a police force or jails.
Oh look, we've succeeded!
I recommend the bell curve article, also. It's an interesting appointment, that's for sure.
Why not? Choices have consequences.
Mate. No true Scotsman was a joke, not something to emulate.
No-one claims they're 100% safe. Not the government, not medics, and not the manufacturers. They specifically warn of a bunch of risks, on package inserts that look like this: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/...
And they're given a liability carve-out because they're at risk of strategic lawsuits designed to shut them down, orchestrated by a coalition of the dumb and the fuckers.
No, they really don't. They're not free to abuse, rape, torture, starve their children, for example. It's not obvious they ought to be free to withhold vaccination and put their children in danger, either.
What you have is all of us selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. The pottage contained longer life for now, better health for now, somewhat greater happiness for now. The birthright was a functioning climate and a planet free of coal ash, mercury, etc.
We just have to figure a way to safely control or dispose of the weapons grade plutonium.
There ought to be some sort of prize for your use of the word "just" in that sentence.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
What does "your loss" even mean in this context? It's not about my loss or your gain. It's about an effective means to counter virulent ideas and specifically counter their spread. Which your proposed solution of reductio ad absurdum patently is not, even though you think it's worked for you.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
Sane rational policy is "pushing the ridiculous to the max", is it? And people dying from exposure to viruses are symptoms and not a problem? Keeping it classy and stupid. Congrats!
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Never mind. What is bollocks is not the idea that TLAs have been bought. What is bollocks is the idea that because some TLAs have sometimes been bought, there is some logical chain that means Amazon should be obliged to sell crocks of shit written by anti-vaxxers. The implication of your raising the fact that TLAs have sometimes been bought is that we shouldn't trust anything they touch. If we don't trust them on vaccines, why trust them on central lines, on whether adenosine is safe and effective, on infection control safeguards, etc etc?
I tell you what, bright boy: if you're so sure that Marsh v Alabama is relevant, why don't you try suing Amazon for impinging on free speech with its T&Cs for posting content, and see how far you get? I could do with a laugh.
If your video isn't on Youtube, does it really exist?
Yes. It really exists. There are other platforms. You can host your own website. But that won't get you as big a potential audience as YouTube? Do me a fucking favour. There's a shit ton of content on YouTube with views in the dozens or fewer. The platform is no guarantee you'll be heard. You have to have something to say that interests other people, without being sufficiently obnoxious to get yourself chucked off.
YouTube is not the public square, any more than Fox or Carnegie Hall. You're foolish to think otherwise. It's a privately owned space and the owner sets the rules. It provides access to larger audiences, just like Fox or Carnegie Hall, but you're not guaranteed a slot, just like Fox or Carnegie Hall.
Should say "work", not "look"
Invent something more ridiculous to replace it?
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc, but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
Adam Schiff isn't a member of the government. Christ, don't you know even basic civics?
Oooh, ooh, I've got another idea for how you can get a virulent idea to survive beside persecuting it. Wanna hear?
You can get a virulent idea to survive by promoting it too!
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
I genuinely cannot tell if you are being stupid or ironic with your spelling of the final word in your sentence. What is it Reacher likes to say? "Hope for the best, plan for the worst".