That list ordering drives me nuts. What's up with 1024?!
And how come much larger numbers have already been solved? Based on that information one cannot strictly assume that the current solution required improvements to the strategy or hardware, no?
The ordering is stupid because some of them are named by the number of bits and some of them are named by the number of decimal digits. They are in order of size and this is the largest one so far, despite the confusing names.
Not within a single calendar system, I think. There have been discontinuities when transitioning between them. Sweden skipped 11 days in 1753: https://todayinhistory.app/events/12868/
> After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted
mail.
I've always wanted this for mail-in voting. E.g. print a random secret on the voting form I receive per mail. Afterwards publish the complete vote-count on the web, with the choice and a hash of the secret. So I can check that my vote was recorded, and only once, and correctly.
I understand there might be a lot of reasons for why it could fail in practice, but it would be a start.
I think the main problem with this is that you can be paid/coerced to vote for someone and be able to easily prove that you voted for the person they wanted. It’s easier to vote for the person you actually wanted to vote for, and maintain plausible deniability, if you go in person to a voting booth.
Could this be mitigated by allowing voters to vote multiple times and receive multiple confirmations, but only count the last vote for each person? That way an individual could prove that they voted a certain way to a third party, but there would be no way for the third party to know whether it was their final vote. Meanwhile the individual knows that they spoiled their previous vote or votes and that their final vote is included.
You’d have the same issue as you’d need to be able to verify that your last vote was being counted, for displaying your vote back to you to have any value.
A scheme to be able to show coercive parties fake votes would be known to them immediately.
This wouldn't solve anything. The person doing the coercion would be able to store the hash and double check after the election if the vote was still the way they wanted.
the question is, what's the worst situation for society.
People not trusting the votes being counted properly or people being coerced paid to vote some way and this making it more valuable.
A plausible solution would be to significantly delay the distribution of the record. i.e. if every election was only printed out 2-4 years after the fact, it could give people confidence that the votes are being counted properly (as otherwise they would be found out eventually), but significantly reduce the incentive for the bad behavior (if one things this actually significantly incentivizes it) because it will be a long time before they can validate if what they were given is true.
You can be paid/coerced to vote for someone even if there's total secrecy. For example, you can take your cellphone in and take a picture of your filled out ballot to collect a payment.
Unless you want to start the confiscation of cellphones before voting in person, the risk of a coerced or bought vote will always exist.
> For example, you can take your cellphone in and take a picture of your filled out ballot to collect a payment.
And then you can go up to the election workers and tell them you have a spoiled ballot and want a new one, which they have to give you. That's one reason such schemes don't work right now.
Source: I volunteer as an election worker every year in Iowa.
In Texas, the election judges are supposed to stop you if you pull out a cellphone or any device.
Paper is all you are allowed to use during the voting process.
In-person, high-risk rule-breaking that's hard to validate has a tendency to scale differently from say, pasting a value into a lottery/payment app.
I mean, compare the number of people who've flown over Barbara Streisand's property to take a picture of her house to the number of people who had a copy of said picture in their browser cache.
You can read more about this peculiar scaling factor of the internet in Bill Gates 1995 book The Road Ahead.
The unfortunate reason this isn't doable in the US anyway, and any time someone has a great idea on how to improve elections this inevitably comes up: preventing coersion. It's difficult to balance transparent voting with ensuring that you can't prove which way you voted in exchange for money or favors.
You can take a picture of your filled out ballot with a cellphone. I don't see how there isn't already a very wide open door for coercion/vote purchasing. It's not 100% fool proof, but you don't need that to sway an election, you just need enough people to follow through.
But even with that, it seems like the better course of action is criminalizing such coercion (which is already illegal). Anyone doing something like that on a scale large enough to matter would be caught rather quickly.
This could be prevented if the government offered photos of ballots with votes for download. But generative AI can also fake it well enough these days. (Of course, this is less of a concern in countries where taking photos of ballots is not allowed.)
For me, the main reason that I'm against all high-tech voting solutions is that a less-than-gifted citizen must be able to check that, at least for their polling station:
- Their vote, and everyone else's, was counted exactly once.
- The number of ballots that are counted is the same as the number of people who voted.
- Votes are anonymous.
All that is easily done with a clear ballot box, a signing registry, and public counting. Adding technology to that just makes the process more difficult to trust IMO.
As for myself, you're going to have to convice me that the software + hardware that's running on election day is exactly conformant to its published source code (the source code is available, right?)
It's not secret to the administrator though, as they could know who was assigned what secret. I think it could work like: before voting, you go to an office where they verify your identity and let you randomly pick envelope containing unique number from a box. After voting all votes are published and you can verify your vote was counted, but nobody else knows your number.
These comments are always interesting to me (genuinely! no shade) because it feels like we're on different sides of the Internet. Almost everything I see about LLMs is somewhere between uneasy acceptance, skepticism, and outright hate. Even those of us who admit they're impressively capable usually caveat it with "... but our jobs and society are cooked, aren't they?"
The "hype onslaught" is, like... Something I know exists, on some abstract level. In news reports about CEOs, or seeing screenshots of LinkedIn, or whatever. But it feels so far removed from a sentiment any real person holds.
Even here, it feels like we're on different websites. Most comments I see on HN are between the "uneasy acceptance" and "skepticism" levels. The "left behind" rhetoric I see made fun of more often than used wholeheartedly. Perhaps we just click on different comment sections?
The "AI mandates", yeah, I'd count that as hype (though even that in its aimlessness feels more like an admission that they don't know what to do and are just trying to fit in to look cool, than outright hype, but still). I'm just lucky to not work at a place that has them.
Absolutely, I was purely reacting to the "not". Every variable named not-something will lead to difficult-to-read code with double-negation like "if (!isNotSomething()) {...}".
There's a rule of thumb somewhere that booleans should always be named / represent something positive, so "enabled" instead of "disabled", "visible" instead of "hidden", and "has_been_viewed_much" instead of "has_not_been_viewed_much".
They meant that a more ergonomic name would be "has_been_viewed_much", so you can filter by the inverse and still get the same result, but with a better name
I know what they meant, I was saying that imo the ergonomic name is has_not_been_viewed_much. it's directly expressing the property you are interested in, as opposed to expressing the negative property and comparing it to false.
> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online
HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.
And how come much larger numbers have already been solved? Based on that information one cannot strictly assume that the current solution required improvements to the strategy or hardware, no?
reply