LogFAQs > #946975994

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Whiskey's Inevitable Election Rant....
Yellow 11/10/20 12:11:21 AM #79:	WhiskeyDisk posted... how is something as simple as voting beyond our technological capability? It's not, the solution is to base voting based off verifiable cryptography. There's just no way you could convince the general population that a program would be that reliable. It would be impossible to get people to avoid flawed implementations as well. People would go, "what do you mean, it says cryptography inspired voting right there on their website!" Say hypothetically I have a candidate supporting a perfect voting model that's mathematically impossible to skew, how am I supposed to convince anyone that it works? They do exist. I truly believe liars are more convincing when it comes to things I don't expect everyone to digest without doing their own research. How will I explain it? "You can do the math on paper and it's mathematically impossible to falsify here's the Wikipedia article" What will my response be? "You're oversimplifying it, it's a very intricate and nuanced issue. I watched an hour long segment from a really smart political philosopher and did my research. You do realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia?" Trying to convince someone that a complicated issue has a very simple answer is like trying to tighten a bolt with a tool made out of soap. They'll always go for the harder answer when it comes to something they don't understand. It's human nature. If I wasn't knowledgeable about computers I would do it too. --- why am I even here <cite>Yellow posted [p:946975994] in Whiskey's ... [t:79091781]...</cite> <quote>WhiskeyDisk posted... </cite> <quote>how is something as simple as voting beyond our technological capability?</quote>It's not, the solution is to base voting based off verifiable cryptography. There's just no way you could convince the general population that a program would be that reliable. It would be impossible to get people to avoid flawed implementations as well. People would go, "what do you mean, it says cryptography inspired voting right there on their website!" Say hypothetically I have a candidate supporting a perfect voting model that's mathematically impossible to skew, how am I supposed to convince anyone that it works? They do exist. I truly believe liars are more convincing when it comes to things I don't expect everyone to digest without doing their own research. How will I explain it? "You can do the math on paper and it's mathematically impossible to falsify here's the Wikipedia article" What will my response be? "You're oversimplifying it, it's a very intricate and nuanced issue. I watched an hour long segment from a really smart political philosopher and did my research. You do realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia?" Trying to convince someone that a complicated issue has a very simple answer is like trying to tighten a bolt with a tool made out of soap. They'll always go for the harder answer when it comes to something they don't understand. It's human nature. If I wasn't knowledgeable about computers I would do it too. --- why am I even here</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1