xariant t1_isxyv8v wrote
Bugs in complex software/hardware systems are WAYYYY more likely than cosmic waves being at fault. We even have error correction in our RAM and comms protocols to handle corruption.
The excerpt reads like FUD against voting machines. Right before an election. Yeah, right.
qichael t1_isy2r93 wrote
a bit flip due to cosmic subatomic particles changing the outcome of an election has actually happened before (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Belgium, Reported Problems section)
not all computers (or voting machines, even) use ECC RAM because it is expensive, so this phenomenon is still something we have to account for.
milton_radley t1_isy7jk1 wrote
i listened to an hour long podcast about this. it literally caused an election result error.
the winners votes were more than the total voters iirc
they showed an experiment where particles could be seen under the right conditions.
it was figured out and the results fixed. but it happened.
edit: 1 hour, not few hour. found the pod episode
milton_radley t1_it0fvdy wrote
i think it was radiolab, a few years ago iirc
edit, found it:
https://www.radiolab.org/episodes/bit-flip
great podcast
(the other latif series is phenomenal)
xariant t1_isy3ewv wrote
It would be really stupid for a voting machine to be designed that doesn't use error correcting technology. It is not THAT much more expensive if at all, these days.
Bugs in hardware and software design are extremely common and are nearly infinitely more likely to cause problems than cosmic particles that evaded hardware error correction schemes.
LilacYak t1_iszes9j wrote
Just reading the paper ballot twice in the span of a second would be enough, ya? Store the data twice, what are the chances that two bits will flip?
Franc000 t1_it0c8f4 wrote
Yep, exactly this. Even better, have the system read the ballot 3~5 times, and the confirmed vote is the one that the machine detect as most voted. Completely automated.
jonathanrdt t1_isyobey wrote
“One likely explanation” is not an actual likelihood; that’s someone saying it’s likely.
Odds are still far greater that it was software error.
Edit: This is the source of the 'likelihood' quote. It says the code in the Belgian election system was so bad there was no point in trying to improve or reuse it. The review of the code process is not at all clear, and these were 486 machines in use in 2003. Cosmic ray is a massive stretch.
qichael t1_iszfdit wrote
that's true, it totally could have been software. however, researchers spent hours combing through the source code of the voting machines and didn't find anything that could be a possible cause for a bit flip at position 13.
either all of them were wrong, or it was a single event upset, and the most probable cause for a single event upset is, you guessed it, a cosmic ray bit flip.
so no, odds are not far greater.
[deleted] t1_iszh2js wrote
[deleted]
stephcurrysmom t1_it14zv3 wrote
Having programmed applications in a real world environment with real world constraints, I agree 100%.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments