Is he right?
Is he right?
Is he being ironic?
Spot on dude.
Everybody I know who says they are a programmer is pretty much just winging it from day one.
Can confirm the first 2 panels
Not a codemonkey so I don't know about the rest
Can confirm, they are all bad at what they do, especially enterprise level programmers.
The first two and the last one aren't really comparable.
The aircraft and elevator people are talking about protection from accidents whereas with computerized voting they are presumably referring to deliberate sabotage.
Better questions to ask about the aircraft/elevator is ”how hijack/bomb/fire-proof are they?” to which the answer is ”none”
He's right about voting software. Computer voting is infinitely easier to rig than paper ballets because with the amount of work you'd need to change one paper vote you could change a million computerized votes, and lets not forget that you have no way of knowing as a voter that your voting terminal is even running the right software, let alone if the software it's supposed to be running isn't full of security holes because it's always closed source and it only gets tested once every few years when there is actually an election.
/thread
But what about aircraft and elevator software?
>Randall btfo
Flying isn't safe because of the planes. Its safe because of all the safety checks and procedures and trainings that are done because of disasters that occurred when we didn't know they were needed. It's also a disaster for profits if something goes wrong.
Elevators are more inherrently safe because they're simple. It's also a disaster for profits if something goes wrong.
Electronic voting is not safe because of how huge and complicated the ALL of machinery used for that is, because the machinery is primarily designed to transmit information so limiting its ability to transmit is far more difficult than getting it to transmit, and because rigging an election is extremely profitable.