I'm watching these videos about the Georgia Phone Call and they're talking about if Dominion did any kind of weird hacks, and all I'm thinking is:

I need to get a voting machine.

Yeah, it turns out if you select the party vote option and toggle it Democrat-Republican-Democrat then tap the Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen three times, you'll trigger the Easter egg and you can play DOOM!
Set your location to California, vote no on Prop 22, party vote democrats and select the Green presidential campaign Howie Hawkins, then toggle Prop 22 to yes, then longpress "reset ballot" and you'll get rickrolled.
This is how my brain works. "the voting machines could be hacked! The president might be trying to steal the election! What should I do?

Oh yeah, get a screwdriver and make a voting machine play DOS games."
I wonder if they're still x86 based? The last time we had a big electronic voting scandal, of the they were... But now we're in the arm era.
Obviously back in 2000 and 2004 the voting machines where going to basically be windows xp boxes running some custom software (well, not in 2000)

What are they today? Linux on arm? God, are they android?
Maybe they've gone for the one true atm operating system.
OS/2!
I took a picture of a Diebold atm the other day, and it was running windows 10.
(possibly on arm, though.)
Personally I think we should run all our voting machines on a well understood, well characterized chip, which we've had nearly half a century to get familiar with.

The 6502!
It powered everything from the Atari 2600 to the NES to the Apple II to the Commodore 64.
A very versatile chip, and it's still manufactured today.
It also limits the ability of state-actors to execute complex attacks on it, because it's so simple.
Has the management engine been hacked with hidden invisible code?
Is there complicated glitch injection lurking in dark silicon?
Has the microcode been updated to calculate some things incorrectly?
No! It's a 6502! The chip is built on 8 um tech and the die looks like this and we know what every single bit of it does.
It'd be interesting to run voting machines like how the Vegas gaming commission runs slot machines.
At any point, inspectors can walk up to a machine and yank chips out to verify they're running the code they're supposed to.
Random spot checks of voting machines, with someone like John McMaster on hand to decap them and image the dies, to confirm they're the chips they claim to be.
Look, democracy can't work without sulfuric acid and electron microscopes
Anyway, if anyone has a voting machine they need to get rid of, let me know.
Georgia probably has a bunch they won't need by the end of the week.
The economics of voting machine companies must be really weird.
You basically have a product that no one needs, except every two years or so they need a couple million of them.
Do you even have stock during those lean years? Or do you just have them made in the run up to an election, then retrofit them all into ATMs and vending machines afterwards?
Do you redesign your system for every election? You've got plenty of time to iterate and improve... Or maybe you just hire all your programmers and engineers on short term contracts which end a week after the election
You've got 20 thousand employees, March to November on even years, and the rest of time you've got a dozen marketing people, a couple executives, and someone to make coffee for them.
Anyway I'm gonna go home and write my own voting software. It'll be open source and target the Apple II.
Of course, being an Apple II, you can only vote for Carter or Reagan.
Anyway, don't blame me, I voted for the doom slayer.
Vice President: Rick Astley
Party: MS-DOS
Campaign slogan: "You are huge! That means you have huge guts!"
Fun fact: the "swamp rabbit" that attacked Jimmy Carter, and possibly cost him the 1980 election?

That was Daisy, Doomguy's pet rabbit.
it turns out I don't need a voting machine, someone already did what I'd do (thanks to @alanc for alerting me to this)

https://t.co/kj4Y58Iebl

More from foone

More from Politics

All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.

Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.


I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.

But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.

Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.

I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.


Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)

Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.

Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte


“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”

So close.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?