skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm a bit surprised by many of the arguments posted here trying to problematize paper votes. This is how it is done in Sweden - I don't want to imply that it's without issues, but it should illustrate how all of the "issues" with paper ballots are resolvable.

* Prior to election, all registered voters get a personal "voting card" sent to their home address. The letter also tells you which polling station you have been assigned.

* On election day, each voter goes to the polling station they have been assigned. You need your ID but not necessarily your voting card.

* Staff verify your ID and you go behind a blind where you put paper ballots (with the option to vote for a party, and, optionally, for a candidate in that party) in sealed envelopes, one for each level you are voting on.

* You go back to the staff with your sealed envelopes, staff mark you as having voted and put the envelopes in boxes.

* At the closing of election day, doors are closed, boxes are opened and ballots are counted at the location with multiple people overseeing each step in the process. The results of this counting is announced the day after as a preliminary result.

* Ballots then get put in tamper-proof bags and transported (again, with oversight) to a hub per district where counting is done again. Final results are announced about 10 days after election.

* Voters who can't vote on their assigned location on election day can vote in advance at any location. The process works the same, except the sealed envelopes are put in another envelope, together with the voter card mentioned above. These ballots are saved for election day, when they are counted together with the normal votes.

* There are also mechanisms for voting via mail (arguably less secure) or at embassies in foreign countries. The process is similar as for advance votes.

* The public is invited to be physically present to monitor the counting of votes.

There's zero machinery involved. The votes are anonymous, yet double-voting is prevented. Counting is done more than once by default. I understand from here that the U.S. is exceptional in that you can't expect registered voters to have a strong ID. I am sure some kind of strong voter IDs could be issued (for free, obviously) that can accommodate for that.

I can not imagine that doing manual recounting of votes and ensuring integrity with manual labor is significantly more costly than the contracts with voting machine suppliers. If it is, it's worth it. In my opinion, provably fair, free and anonymous voting is the killer app for blockchain. It is still a theoretically unsolved problem, however, and until we get there (if we ever do), machine-less paper voting is strictly better than both electronic voting and electronic counting of votes. If anything, the manual counting can be supplemented by electronic counting machines.

You think the U.S. is unique and this won't work because of federalization? We still somehow manage to pull off voting for European Parliament.

More info for the curious here: https://www.val.se/servicelankar/other-languages/english-eng...
You have to apologise for having been friends with and having received money from someone you didn't know was a pederast?

Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.
It leaves a record that the somebody else cast a vote. This would be noticed rapidly if the real person then showed up to vote and was prevented because an impersonator got there first. If that doesn’t happen, you can ask them if they voted. For people you can’t ask and know that they couldn’t have voted (for example, the record is stale and they’ve moved or died) then you know that any record of them voting must be an impersonator.

How often do any of these things actually happen? It’s all public record. The data is there for analysis. And yet nobody can point to more than a handful of examples.
We are looking for an extremely skilled CTO in the Cyber Security segment
We are actively looking for an extremely skilled CTO in the Network and Cyber Security landscape for the growth phase of our startup. Orsec Technologies SAS is a future leader in Cyber Security solutions. We are based in Bordeaux (France).

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6570015546606264320
Fertility doctors who used their own sperm
In addition, trying to source IDs tends to surface some historical issues that we usually don't think about. One big one is that everyone has a birth certificate -- yet, if you weren't born in a hospital, you may not have such a certificate.
What stoops the system from giving you someone else's id. From a person who voted just like you and registering your vote as it pleases under new id it wont give to anyone?
Faktorings Uzņēmumiem no 1000 līdz 50 000 EUR – Cityfinances.lv
One way to deal with the tax issue for a farm is to transfer the developers rights to a non profit.
In VA (or, at least in Fairfax County), we fill in a paper ballot which is scanned by a machine. The vote counting is done by the scanners/electronically, but there is a paper trail for audits. Seems like the best of both worlds (when implemented properly).

Like you, I would have zero faith in an electronic voting booth that simply said "Yup, you pushed a button." I have no idea what actually gets "written to disk".
From Microsoft's perspective, they consider local privilege elevation on a client computer an "important" vulnerability that requires patching and paying a bug bounty:

https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2018/09/10/microsoft-securit...

So some companies consider LPE to be serious.
Ignorance isn't usually a defense, but it seems difficult to blame someone in these kinds of cases. If my former college roommate is a nazi, that doesn't seem to reflect on me, even if we sometimes got donuts together.

Obviously this isn't the case when our theoretical Nazi is going around throwing up salutes and goose-stepping, but certainly no human can be judged for not being omniscient?
> That said, I take full responsibility for my error in judgment. I am deeply sorry to the survivors, to the Media Lab, and to the MIT community for bringing such a person into our network.

If you don't know that a person is bad, then you just don't know. People didn't know Bundy was a serial killer, and we shouldn't fault them for not knowing. You don't know what you don't know. That's not a fault. That's not something you have to apologize for.
imo part of the problem is our liberal arts influenced college education system.

because college has moved away from being a luxury of broadly educating landed gentry to being a signaling of "i can be employed and responsible" the train a generalist approach doesn't really work.

To be specific, there are two types of journalists/writers

1. domain experts that are good writers/communicators
2. good writers/communicators with an ability to pick up domains quickly

at some point the 2nd type of person will be out of their depth. but the 1st type of person is expensive.

Why are Matt Levine and Adam Minter (even Krugman sometimes) such great journalists? All were domain experts first.

Great journalists that were not domain experts still exist, but they are more of the investigative variety. the ones that win Pulitzers.
Of course physical cash should exist. There just isn't enough of it and it isn't practical for large investors.
If anything you'd use wasm in electron.
It's called due diligence. The guy had a conviction on the record for underage prostitution. This isn't mom and pop's corner gas station, this is MIT, a well respected institution. You don't get "well I had no idea this man who has a public criminal record had a bad history" when MIT is running background checks on janitors that wouldn't get through with something like that on their record.

The world needs more accountability, not less, especially amongst those in power. Patting this guy on the back for posting an apology on the internet is effectively approving of the status quo that got us here. MIT can and should do better.
But... Russia!
Because its a free country, because a federal ID disenfranchises those who will find it difficult or impossible to get such an ID, because not trusting the government is the whole point of the US constitution.
Appropriate?

This is as good as agit-prop as any.

Sorry, but not sorry: why is it important that someone was associating with a child molester, if they never experienced or was witness to, or participated in, the said crime, has an opinion? Has to defend themselves, for association?

A conclusion one can reach, upon careful inspection: molesters live among us. You will not always recognise them. Be fearful, always, of the ones you think you can trust - for their altitude, for their contribution, for their gratitude.

Essentially, this is white terrorism.

Epstein was a heinous, now famous, human being. There are a lot more of them out there.
Do you do a deep dive in the criminal history of every person you deal with? No? didn't think so.
Google has been factoring load times heavily into their search rankings for a while now. While I don't agree with a lot of their priorities, this gives a designer who's so inclined a lot of opportunity for encouraging clients to do the right thing: just show them their site's PageSpeed results, and they'll sober up.
They probably take in money from so many questionable sources at MIT (and similar institutions) that Epstein's prior conviction didn't raise any red flags. Business as usual.
I find this tiresome. You don't need to apologize for acquaintances, or for the hidden personal lives of people you have impersonal business transactions with. Guilt is not spread by touch.

My guess is that you have shaken hands, at least once in your life, with someone who (unbeknownst to you) is a truly horrible person. It's life.
I see this all the time and wonder to what extent it has contributed to mistrust of the traditional media.

I'd say it's more likely that people are mistrustful of the media because the media will say things they either don't like or don't agree with personally, rather than a specific concern about articles lacking certain context on complicated topics.
>Likewise the existence of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated is the more complicated hypothesis

It's no more complicated than the hypothesis of the existence of false accusations of sexism, especially at the broad global conspiratorial heights at which it is postulated. Beginning with the assumption that sexism is not a big problem only gives the appearance of neutrality.

In reality, we probably all agree that sexism exists and false accusations exist, and we're trying to determine how prevalent each is. That is an extremely difficult task.
I enjoy Joe Rogan from time to time and started watching after the episode of Elon Musk. Alex Jones moved his jaw in a very strange manner while talking and had to go to the bathroom 2 times during the show.
I guess I shouldn't have used the word "class" as you're not the only person to come back with that. I mean that it's generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. I think you know that comparing heroin to nicotine is just silly and, as far as I'm aware, there's no data that shows that nicotine is any more or substantially more harmful than caffeine.

So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why should they be subject to a prescription?
Is this a tag along to the "WeWork isn't a tech company" article?

>Like Sky before it, Netflix is a television company using tech as a crowbar for market entry.

Anyway I'd say Netflix is a tech company, that "crowbar" is pretty critical to their success and still pretty impressive.
I'm really confused about this because I don't understand the incentives politicians have to adopt this in their own state. It clearly undermines their state's power in national elections.

My (cynical) assumption is that this will be obeyed insofar as it helps bring about the desired outcome by those in power. It will be disregarded if it would shift the outcome in the other direction.
Non-zero amount of work, negative benefit. Even wholly illegitimate states, such as Kazakhstan's, investigate legitimate crimes from time to time, and such an attempt would zero out any chance that government would otherwise have of extraditing someone who committed one.
It was public record 5 years before their interaction.
Cash is universally considered the most liquid asset because it can most quickly and easily be converted into other assets.

If the amount of physical cash is huge however, say 1 billion euros, it can be less liquid than German government bonds. There is cost of moving, counting, securing it and significant delay for buying and selling. If you try to buy something for 1 billion EUR in cash, it might cost 100k EUR to do so and few days until you can buy anything.

But you are correct, there is probably a limit after wich banks start to convert some part of their assets to cash.
Not at all the same. Most people are pushing hard for TLS, with just some fringe elements resisting it.

If it was like voting machines, you’d have massive initiatives to run everything on plain HTTP and any suggestion that we should all use HTTPS is completely ignored.
Well then fix that problem (of it being difficult or onerous to acquire an id that you can vote with).

In Canada, you don't actually even need an ID to vote. [0]

Two pieces of paper like your voting information card (that is mailed directly to you) and a utility bill with your name and address will suffice.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&do...
Not talking about that class "stimulants". See comment below.
I think I'm missing something with all this — hopefully someone can link me to better resources, or help me out.

What exactly did Ito do wrong here? It sounds like he had no knowledge of Epstein's misdeeds while they were associates.
Notable omissions: any BSD platform.
I have been asked for ID once or twice. (I think you sometimes get young clerks who were told to do something and they haven't figured out no one takes that "rule" seriously.)
> the paper records can be used to run a stop-loss audit to verify the electronic vote count

You can't do this. Probably the most fundamental problem with electronic vote verification is that you cannot give someone physical evidence of how their vote was cast, because it makes voter coercion feasible.

Its why almost all absentee / write in ballots are set up so that if you send multiple ballots only the last one is counted (or an in person vote if you give one). If someone tries to coerce your vote and use the absentee ballot as proof unless they keep you imprisoned until the election is over they can't prove you didn't resubmit / go in person to change your vote.

With receipts for in person ballots the only way to defeat coercion is to make it so you can, at the point of receipt, get issued an intentionally flawed receipt. But if you are verifying votes this way, it would have to be for another legitimate voter voting the exact way your coercer wanted. That sounds like a hugely limiting technical flaw.
Didn't know? Epstein was convicted 5 years before they met.
And your deposit won't be insured past like 100k euro.
That is incorrect. In Massachusetts, for instance, you have to renew your license every two years. I believe you need a new photo (requiring a trip to the DMV) every four years.

Your next thought might be along the lines of accepting expired ID for voting purposes. That's an interesting idea but unlikely to be accepted. In Massachusetts, for instance, you can't buy even a six pack of beer if you cannot produce a valid driver's license. Expired licenses are as good as no license at all in that case.
If the popular vote favored, say Trump, and if California could change the election by pulling out of the compact, they would. In a heartbeat.

That's why I'm not too worried about it. If it would really change the result, it's easy for a State to hit the pause button.
https://www.top10vpn.com/free-vpn-app-investigation/
Slontin was a cowboy (in the derogatory sense of the term) who thought bravado would keep him safe from intense radiation. The demon core incident wasn't an isolated incident, one of his less famous exploits involved swimming in an active nuclear reactor, which obviously irradiated him badly.

> "In the winter of 1945–1946, Slotin shocked some of his colleagues with a bold action. He repaired an instrument six feet under water inside the Clinton Pile while it was operating, rather than wait an extra day for the reactor to be shut down. He did not wear his dosimetry badge, but his dose was estimated to be at least 100 roentgen.[12] A dose of 1 Gy (~100 roentgen) can cause nausea and vomiting in 10% of cases, but is generally survivable.[13]"
Doing this seems completely unnecessary to me. Did Joi really make a mistake that they could have realistically avoided?

To me, putting out this apology vaguely comes off as something like “virtue signaling” or “fishing for sympathy”. I’m not saying it actually is either of those things, I just don’t know the exact words to describe how I feel about it.

Somebody please let me know if I am wrong and an apology is in fact appropriate from this person.
These ones https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/10/01/alabama-drivers-licen...
I'd probably at least google a millionaire before visiting several of their residences?
Steve Klabnik wrote a blog post around this last year. More challenging the "isn't WASM just another Java?" take, but I think still relevant to your question.

https://words.steveklabnik.com/is-webassembly-the-return-of-...
Exactly. In fact, how do we know that something on the internet hasn't already evolved into a consciousness, and is so far beyond our understanding (like our own consciousness) that we haven't even detected it yet?
Their objective is that people won't save the money. They want people to spend the money, the sooner the better, but that goal completely contradicts what a retiree (and aging population) needs/wants to do.
If the author never had reason to suspect Epstein of anything unsavory.... why is the apology required?

I can understand the need to make a statement, but seems to me that there was no lapse in judgement exercised at the time, but rather an unfortunate crossing-of-paths in retrospect.
You expect us to believe Ito wasn't aware of the conviction? please.
Either Ito failed to do even a minimal amount of due diligence on a person he accepted millions of dollars from, or he did and then didn't care. Either way, it's a catastrophic failure of judgment.

He ought to resign immediately. This is CYA apology. He's taking responsibility in words only. It's disgraceful.

Resign.
It's pretty common. VC funds will run these checks on you, and most companies do as well when they even hire you. It's table stakes for any company committed to data security and safety.
> As parent says, that's the design, but I'm sure there will be upset people in those states.

There are people upset with the plurality winner getting all the states votes, too.
the operational historian parts of SCADA systems
People willfully ignore those details when money is on the line. There's a good chance he genuinely didn't know because he genuinely didn't bother to research his investors.

Plenty of SV investors looked the other way when Milner flooded the community with Kremlin-connected money, including PG (see his comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143604 from 2011)
That seems to be the conclusion of the mailing list thread as well, there was an initial bad gcc bug report that didn't understand the problem, seemingly no follow-up with a proper bug report.
> I'm so sick and tired of stories like this framing the issue of election security as a software issue or hardware issue.

Election security is certainly more than software or hardware. But I'm sick and tired of jurisdictions that permit paperless votes, because by definition they are insecure.

> You can mitigate software flaws with chains of custody, tamper proof seals, bipartisan poll watchers, bipartisan election judges, and enough transparency.

Not true; none of these mitigations work. If the software is malicious, it can receive one input and produce a different result. Reviews of source code and even machine code are not enough, because you don't get adequate confidence that what was reviewed is what was run. "Tamper proof" seals don't help, because the malicious code could have been what's installed in the first place, and hardware can easily report "what you expect to see" while running something else in practice on election day. In most cases the source code isn't even available for public review & scrutiny, so there's no possibility of enough transparency even if you could somehow be assured of what code was run.

When I was a kid I liked to do magic tricks. I bought cheap plastic devices that looked like they did one thing, but in actuality did something else. Modern DRE systems are just a magic trick device - they'll do something, but not necessarily what you think they do.

> Most election systems in the United States employ all of these controls, which is why you have few stories of legitimate votes being discarded due to software failure or tampering.

You hear few stories because there is no effective logging, and therefore no way to report failure or tampering.

> If your argument is that paper ballots are more auditable or harder to hack, they are not. The same access controls above can be applied to paper, and paper is always susceptible to being destroyed, lost, or conveniently found in a clutch race.

Paper ballots are subvertible, but because they are physical items someone has to physically be there to do the manipulation. There's also a long history with paper ballots, so the ways they can be subverted are known - as are their countermeasures.

> Hackable machines are a problem, but they are not the only problem. ...

It's true that these machines are not the only problem, but voting systems are systems. For voting systems to be legitimate we must address all parts. Direct Recording Equipment (DREs) subvert the entire voting system, and thus should never be allowed to be part of one.
wonder why it's called code mentor. they're either a mentor for education purposes or doing work unrelated to that.
So you look up everybody who you meet irl? I mean the way I'm reading this blog post is that the author had no idea. Personally I don't believe it, that's why I wouldn't accept the apology if I cared about this
Every person? No. Someone giving you around a quarter million dollars? Yes. Hence the appropriateness of the apology.
solar panels + LEDs is more efficient than direct sunlight because the panels absorb in a wide frequency range and then the LEDs only emit at the wavelength required for photosynthesis. This is a very recent development and it's barely an improvement over outside growing due to overhead costs.
Huge fan of SDKMan. Just wish it was friendlier with Windows.
Haha, a deep dive? It was probably the first Google result!
Dude, just resign
Exit polls are considered non-scientific for a variety of reasons.

A better option is human-readable paper ballots, as you can manually compile results from batches of ballots and run stop-loss audits on them.
Would you have multiple presidents? How would you break their roles up? Which one gets the nuclear code or do they all?
If the vulnerability is out of scope, why do they care about disclosing it? If it is a vulnerability in their system, why is it out of scope?
Stephen Wolfram reflects on 50 years of mentoring
You should, especially in the age of the Internet where much of this information is publicly available