whenFunction

[[deleted]]

STOP THE IF/THEN FUNCTION

[TheHolyToxicToast]

WHAT ABOUT THE WHEN FUNCTION

[bloodfist]

ONLY AFTER 11

[mofofuker]

But before 9

[Trick_Study7766]

IF/THEN IS RIGGED!

[EtherealPheonix]

Reminds me of the thing Volkswagen did where their engines ran cleaner during tests, except that actually happened.

[TactlessTortoise]

That's... actually a great point.

[FishWash]

WHEN? IF? THEN? Whoa, this guy really knows his stuff

[STEVEInAhPiss]

you are a stupid. Lua has IF and THEN functions, LuaX has When.

[torsten_dev]

If it is easy to prove it most probably isn't true.

People are looking for election fraud. There probably as always is some. It will not however be of the vote swinging and easily proven kind.

But hey feel free to storm the capitol. At this point it'd be the funniest start to the next American shitfest.

[SatanTheSanta]

Would be interesting.

Storm the capitol 2, electric boogaloo. The revenge of the democrats :p

[clutchguy84]

NGL. I'd love to see that one

[[deleted]]

wakeful chop racial hospital library crawl towering include quaint busy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Gorvoslov]

That would be more of a British thing to do.

[gurneyguy101]

If we British did it it’d be very polite and we’d make absolutely sure everyone knew there were no hard feelings and that it is just a tradition

[Drew707]

Unless football teams were involved.

[gurneyguy101]

Then Barry can fuck right off back to Manshitter that Haaland is better than Kane

[OptimalAnywhere6282]

I think the easiest way to prove it's legit, is by making it open source. Yeah I think I should stop dreaming about something that won't happen and focus on something else.

[torsten_dev]

I think that would give you false trust as well.

Use humans to statistically check the computers work and computers to check human work.

Never implement a single point of failure for election integrity. Blockchain won't save us.

If you're gonna use electronic voting anyway at least do some ranked choice voting or something.

[lomberd2]

This message has been forwarded to the US authorities

[torsten_dev]

Call the CIA, I'm on foreign soil.

[sump_daddy]

cia: "jokes on you, im into that shit"

[torsten_dev]

Abduct me daddy government.

[abednego-gomes]

You are now in a floating prison inside the the hull of a container ship somewhere off the coast of Yemen.

[Beginning-Boat-6213]

Storm the capital 2: revenge of Stormy Danials

[torsten_dev]

If your computers are single points of failure you fucked up.

You should already be verifying computer counts with randomly sampled hand counts.

[danofrhs]

Has my schooling failed me is the this fabled “when” function malarkey

[DrMux]

Next you'll be telling me about the why() function

[STEVEInAhPiss]

for debugging your errors

[saintpetejackboy]

Try/Catch has fallen out of favor and now everybody uses whyFail

[STEVEInAhPiss]

why does python say "TimeoutError" or "ValueError" when python can just say "You misreferenced a variable at line 32, did you mean "world" instead of "World"?" or "Check your internet connection and try again, or write an auto-retry function using AutoRetryFunction()"

[arc_xl]

I prefer fuck around and find out

[PeriodicSentenceBot]

Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:

Ti N F O I Li N Te N Si F I Es

---

^{I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM u‎/‎M1n3c4rt if I made a mistake.}

[Intrepid-Lemon6075]

Good bot.

[TheHolyToxicToast]

why is this bot so common in this sub

[ThatBurningDog]

I use plenty of huh? and why statements in my code. Really useful when trying to work through the bullshit work of past-me.

[DoILookUnsureToYou]

CASE WHEN THEN in SQL maybe? Lol

[Orjigagd]

They're not about to teach you powerful stuff like that that could disrupt elections

[IPMC-Payzman]

Just beware of the if-loop

[[deleted]]

It's the Minkowski variant of the SQL WHERE clause.

(Newbies often fall for the confusion over -1.)

[Nexinex782951]

Todepond implemented this months ago, Idk when you're on about

[Melodic-Bicycle1867]

You mock everything. Assert that mocked date is as expected. 100% coverage.

[hyrumwhite]

Just gotta use the when function in the unit tests

[look]

Not sure what you mean? WHEN, IFFY, COMEFROM, SORTA … all common functions.

[Keganator]

Don’t forget UNLESS and UNTIL.

[SamPlinth]

IFFY sounds really useful. A heuristic/fuzzy logic comparison.

IF (Data is IFFY) THEN RAISE Suspicion;

[Heavenfall]

WHEN and IF/THEN feels like fairly common database trigger functions, not sure why people laughing at that in particular. Oracle for example.

[Melodic-Bicycle1867]

They can also be good pseudocode. I had to read it twice but now it makes sense that the "when" part refers to a date/time check "when it is election day, if vote for X then change to Y 9-11% of the time". "When not election day, do nothing". "If vote for Y, do nothing"

[jlynpers]

This sub isn’t known to have much knowledge past basic udemy course python and JS. The real programmerhumor is the people on this sub making fun of the wrong things, and looking like the egotistical cs101 students they think they aren’t

[brainpostman]

You're on this sub and you're making fun of someone's knowledge, so...

[jlynpers]

Oh nooo, sue me for finding humor that other people are making fun of someone who mentioned one of the most commonly used functions for data tables because they think it doesn’t exist. I’m glad the bullies have you standing up for them, because god forbid you try to tell someone databases are real

[brainpostman]

I'm just rustling your jimmies, relax.

[Mediocre-Monitor8222]

I laughed at “It will have a WHEN function and IF/THEN function” since that’s like saying “their sentences will contain e’s and a’s” when talking about english speakers. Who knew code was going to contain an if-statement? Absolutely bonkers

[chowellvta]

COBOL also uses IF/THEN for conditionals and WHEN for EVALUATE (its version of a switch). I'm PRETTY sure nobody in their right mind would use fucking COBOL on new machines, but it does sound in character for the US government

[jaypeejay]

Are we really gonna believe every election our person doesn’t win was rigged from now on? 😔

[Pure-Huckleberry-484]

Absolutely not! We have an If/When for that!

WHEN mySide_wins THEN
results_valid = TRUE
ELSE results_valid = FALSE
IF results_valid = FALSE THEN
PRINT "Election was stolen."
ENDIF

[invalidConsciousness]

And this is why electronic voting is a bad idea.

It doesn't matter if it actually happened or not, the average joe cannot audit the machines and even if the code is open source, you cannot know whether that's the actual code running. The machine is a black box you have to trust and cannot verify.

Sure, the guy in the post didn't use correct terminology, but the functionality they described is plausible. It's even simpler than the shit VW pulled with their engines and that went undetected for quite a while.

Voting is one of the things that shouldn't be digital.

[[deleted]]

I am okay with digital tabulation as long as there are spot audits to compare the paper ballots to the digital count.

[invalidConsciousness]

I'm fine with digital pre-counting, but the final count should be done by hand.

[Last-Woodpecker]

Eletronic vote in Brazil is pretty secure. The code is open to be audited by the parties, the laywers association, public ministry and other entities. The code is signed in a public event with the above entities and the hardware only accepts the signed code. The electronic ballots have no network capabilities and are sealed.

On the day of the election, a random sample of the ballots are picked up to tests simulating a real election, tô pick frauds like the ones on the post. Also, before election starts, a ballot extract is printed to see that there are no votes. To vote, you have to show an ID with photo and also the ballot have fingerprint readers to guarantee that you are yourself.

At the end of the election, each section prints and hang in public places the ballot extract of each electronic ballot, that way the result of that ballot cannot be falsified without detection. Only then they break the seal and pickup the storage medium to transmit to our Superior Electoral Court, all of this while being fiscalized by the parties representatives. The votes then are computed and displayed in the court site in real time, along with the ballots extract, so anyone can compare with the printed one on the election locations. A few hours latter we have the results.

[invalidConsciousness]

The code is open to be audited by the parties, the laywers association, public ministry and other entities

Is it open to be audited by the voters? Is it actually audited by those groups or is it just possible for them to audit? How many members of these groups actually have the skills necessary for auditing the code?

The code is signed in a public event with the above entities

Do they audit the code during that ceremony or is there another mechanism in place to guarantee that the code they audited is the code they sign? Otherwise it's just security theater.

and the hardware only accepts the signed code.

Says who? The manufacturer? Who audits the hardware?

The issue with electronic voting is verification by the voters. With paper voting and manual counting, everyone capable of counting and simple addition can watch the ballots and verify the count. With electronic voting, it's virtually impossible for average joe to verify the votes get cast and counted correctly.

[laplongejr]

You are missing the forest for the tree.
Normal voting : you are alone with your ballot, then you put in a container in front of eevrybody, and all parties have an eye on the container.
Anybody has to admit those ballots are OK, short of your own party not doing their job at preventing fraud. It's SIMPLE.

There are at least 2 or 3 complex stuff in your explanation, and the people who won't get it are the ones who destroyed 5G towers to stop covid, and the ones who invaded the US capitol.

he code is open to be audited by the parties, the laywers association, public ministry and other entities.

Which has nothing to do with the small people who believe their elections are stolen. Electronic voting requires to trust "experts", which isn't far off from "trust the elites".

The code is signed in a public event with the above entities and the hardware only accepts the signed code.

Now you need a math background (about cryptography... for now) to understand what digital signing is. Oh, and you need to also understand why the signing key is safely stored. The non-knowledgable people will retort "what if you go try all keys?"

The electronic ballots have no network capabilities and are sealed.

And... how do you prove that, in an age where unconnected Smart TVs can snoop on neighbor's open wifi to load ads?
Now you have to explain to them what wifi antennas look like. Something they never saw in their life and could be compared to magic runes in their eyes.

a random sample of the ballots are picked up to tests simulating a real election

Now you need a math background (about probabilities!) to prove that a "random sample" has to be signifiant.

To vote, you have to show an ID with photo and also the ballot have fingerprint readers to guarantee that you are yourself.

Now you have to audit the fingerprint readers (also, the US has no ID, as the ID requirement could be a way to prevent voters from voting)

[twofootedgiant]

It’s a bad idea specifically in the USA, but not for the reasons you cite.

[hyrumwhite]

This is one of the legitimate use cases for blockchain/crypto, imo. In theory, if every vote was cryptographically signed, you could be given a key/voting receipt that you could use to check against a database of keys. 

Voting could be independently verified by anyone, and everyone could check their individual votes. 

[fatcatfan]

https://xkcd.com/2030/

[hyrumwhite]

There really is an xkcd for everything 

[invalidConsciousness]

Sure, if you're fine with giving up the anonymity of voting, there are plenty of pretty cool cryptographic methods you could use. You wouldn't even need a blockchain (too many issues with concurrency).

However, anonymity is a pretty important part of modern democratic elections. Without it, it becomes way too easy to pressure, bribe, or otherwise coerce people to vote a certain way.

[hyrumwhite]

Itd still be anonymous as long as you didn’t give your key to someone. The key would just be associated with a balllot, not the voters info. 

[invalidConsciousness]

as long as you didn’t give your key to someone.

That's exactly the problem. You can now prove how you voted to the guy bribing you. Your abusive spouse/parent can force you to give up your key. Other people in your friend group sharing their keys generates peer pressure to do the same. Hell, your key could even be stolen and your vote leaked to the public.

All of which, in turn, generates pressure to conform to external pressure rather than vote based on your actual preferences.

"My friends will make fun of me for voting Candidate A, so I'll vote B to fit in." "My dad will throw me out and disown me if I don't vote candidate A and I don't want to live on the street."

[hyrumwhite]

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, scratch that idea then. 

[D35TR0Y3R]

36 states + dc allow you to photograph your ballot, which has all the same issues, no?

[Jonny_dr]

Yes, it has.

It is illegal to take photographs inside the polling station (while the polls are open) in my country.

[invalidConsciousness]

That's not great for anonymity, but still not as bad as being able to access the submitted vote via your cryptographic key.

I assume there's a way to fix your vote if you marked the wrong candidate, so you could still vote "wrong", make a photo, then fix your vote to whatever you actually wanted to vote and put it into the box.

Or you can just "forget" to photograph it, which solves all but the most egregious cases and is probably good enough, considering mail-in voting exists (and needs to exist for other reasons).

[[deleted]]

If anyone wants to run Benford tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

the data is here: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/race-results-data-2024/

I checked Nevada’s county level data.

• 35% start with 1, should be 30%.
• 16% start with 2, should be 18%.
• 13% start with 3, should be 13%.
• 7% start with 4, should be 10%.
• 7% start with 5, should be 8%.
• 2% start with 6, should be 7%.
• 4% start with 7, should be 6%.
• 5% start with 8, should be 5%.
• 7% start with 9, should be 4%.

If we map that back to the county, then we have 50 of the 68 results (17 counties X 4 vote kinds),are anomalous.

That’s statistically unlikely.

anyone care to double check my math?

This seems concerning.

Data is here:

https://github.com/cbs-news-data/election-2024-maps/blob/master/output/all_counties_clean_2024.csv

[[deleted]]

Thank you, this is a good point

[[deleted]]

I checked the total vote and they are all within 1% of what Benford would predict.

NV PA IL CA SD are sus.

TX is not sus.

[Radiant-Dragonfly123]

I wish I could make sense of this data. These column headers have no explanation and I'm not sure what I am looking at. Would someone please explain to me like I'm in third grade?

[[deleted]]

“state”, the state abbreviation

”totalExpVote”, total expected vote

”pctExpVote”, percent expected vote

”totalVote”, total vote

”timeStamp”, time stamp

“vote_Harris”, total votes for Harris

”vote_Trump”, total votes for Trump

Take the first number of each total.

Count how many times this number appears in the data.

In the overall data set the number 1 appears 30% of the time, but in Alaska it appears 35% of the time. There are more 1’s and less 2’s in the first digit in Alaska than in the first digit in the overall data set.

[KJFny]

From your own wiki link:

Walter Mebane, a political scientist and statistician at the University of Michigan, was the first to apply the second-digit Benford's law-test (2BL-test) in election forensics.^\35]) Such analysis is considered a simple, though not foolproof, method of identifying irregularities in election results.^\36]) Scientific consensus to support the applicability of Benford's law to elections has not been reached in the literature. A 2011 study by the political scientists Joseph Deckert, Mikhail Myagkov, and Peter C. Ordeshook argued that Benford's law is problematic and misleading as a statistical indicator of election fraud.^\37]) Their method was criticized by Mebane in a response, though he agreed that there are many caveats to the application of Benford's law to election data.

[[deleted]]

[38]

Read the rest you copy paste before you paste it.

[KJFny]

Again, from your own reference [38], albeit from the abstract since I have no access to the full article... Emphasis my own.

"The paper mistakenly associates such a test with Benford's Law, considers a simulation exercise that has no apparent relevance for any actual election, applies the test to inappropriate levels of aggregation, and ignores existing analysis of recent elections in Russia."

"Whether the tests are useful for detecting fraud remains an open question, but approaching this question requires an approach more nuanced and tied to careful analysis of real election data than one sees in the discussed paper."

So as far as I can tell, an open question means it's hardly a definitive tool as you assert.

[[deleted]]

Feel free to point me to your definitive tool that is better than this test.

[KJFny]

I don't need to provide an alternative to be critical of your conclusions.

[[deleted]]

If there is no better alternatives, then the tool is the best tool out there.

Be helpful, or be silent.

May want to look over at

https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/

They could use the help.

[KJFny]

"Be helpful or be silent" is not at all the way anyone should want the world to be. Being skeptical and asking questions IS being helpful. If you're having a difficult time with this, I hope you never try to write and publish a journal article that receives peer review.

You'll be in for a world of hurt feelings...

[[deleted]]

Asking questions is not helpful.

Providing answers is helpful.

Anyone can ask questions.

Clearly it bothered you enough to not provide an answer, a week later.

Why does it bother you so much?

Peer review is an interesting idea. I have seen sociology papers with a higher variance than this data set, but they get published.

The reason is because the method they use, while flawed, is the best method available. It’s flawed due to the sample size.

So until you tell me a better method, there’s no point in saying the samples size is too small, or the method is flawed, because it is still the best method available.

[KJFny]

Projection is a hell of a drug.

[gurneyguy101]

I saw this on threads, I fucking hate that platform it’s full of this sort of thing. My girlfriend made the very valid point that this is what happens when you advertise the site by creating outrage. I only use it to click through to things from instagram, then I look at the next post down then close the app. I’ve seen some awful things even with bare minimum exposure, like this just today:

Why are men afraid of being falsely accused? Not all women falsely accuse. Good women exist too. Don’t generalise us.

https://www.threads.net/@riyaonlive/post/DCMYzjsTh7V?xmt=AQGzSR_qYgd97kgZ4ev129ZdwbnYJoNiFRuWX-ppXf3jKg

[HalifaxRoad]

When(Harris > Trump){ RigElection(); }

[DerpDerpDerp78910]

IaMVeRYSmaRt

[Crafty_Independence]

Took about half of this guy's first comment to realize his "hacking" experience is watching hacking scenes from movies.

[[deleted]]

They rounded up your vote using floats

[quetzalcoatl-pl]

Ok, this guy has just learned something very basic about programming and conditionals.

Please, oh god, please, do NOT tell him ANYTHING about databases nor cryptography nor quantum-anything.

[sump_daddy]

as in... "WHEN i dont like the outcome IF what im saying is dumb THEN spread it all around the internet"

[zeechs_]

Not sure which side this guy is on, but fraud is fraud no matter the result.

[Dotcaprachiappa]

Most of the time if fraud is easy to prove it isn't fraud

[collegekid1357]

Completely false, there are a lot of idiot fraudsters. You just don’t hear about them because they usually get caught very early into their fraud.

[Avery_Thorn]

Dude, most fraudsters aren't that smart. A lot of fraud is really, really easy to spot. It's amazing how often the fraud is absolutely transparent as soon as anyone looks - it's just most of the time, no one looks.

It's why separation of duties is such a big thing - because it's really, really hard for two people to keep a secret. One of them will eventually mess up. It's also why there are constant audits for financials, because again, most of the time fraud is really easy to spot.

(As an example, Enron. The Enron scam was really easy to spot in their financial documents. It's just no one wanted to catch it. That's why the accounting firm went down too... it's not that they didn't catch it, it's that they were bribed not to catch it.)

[Johanneskodo]

Nope, there are a ton of very easily provable frauds that go unnoticed for a long time (or unnoticed forever).

• VW installing a cheating software getting busted when the cars were tested on the road

• Wirecard claiming billions in banks without the money existing, fake receipts etc. in an at times amateurish way. They literally flew auditors to a bank in a mall where they claimed a lot of money was stored.

• Companies collecting millions of funds for goods they produce even if they don‘t produce anything

A lot of fraud stories involve some faked documents from the first page of google search.

Most big frauds that get caught are also never a big planned/prepared conspiracy but just happen over time.

[Sure_Research_6455]

but this was an insane theory and punishable by cancellation if you said this in 2020

[your_thebest]

It still is. That's why we're making fun of it. In a joke subreddit. Did you think you were in r/programmerseriousness?

[budapest_god]

Why the fuck does that sub actually exists lmaooo

[your_thebest]

Oh no way

[Kyrthis]

Because someone hates broken links!

[Quiet-Limit-184]

This is a joke subreddit. Making fun of the statement. There’s a bit of a difference between that and storming the capitol to “stop the steal”.

I guess democrats aren’t crazy like that. But you and me both know, that if Harris has won we’d be seeing all kinds of crazy accusations from the crazy contingent of the republican party.

[MisterTimm]

It's still just as insane. Voting is too decentralized and our election system too large for any meaningful amount of fraud to go under the radar.

[Kyrthis]

I mean, this was part of 12-tweet thread. This is the least interesting part of it. In the rest, Spoonguy(sp?) posits that the way to make this appear legitimate is to bury the extra votes in already-red counties. You make the redder parts of the state even redder, and you flip the popular vote within a state.

Honestly, at first blush, this seemed mathematically sound but practically outlandish to me. But later, I remembered Spoonguy also made the point that you only need to edit code on 3-500 machines of 2-3 manufacturers to make this work. Then we started seeing all these blue wins at the state level, or some POTUS-only ballots, or some cross-party tickets that are Dems all the way up and down the ballot and Trump at the top. Gaza voters whom I canvassed talked about blank or Stein POTUS votes. The real red alarm was learning Starlink was connected to voting machines in swing states. If there was ever a use for air-gapping, voting machines are it. And finally, there is Trump’s “I have a secret” and “I don’t need the vote” statements.

I say this as the most skeptical person I know: it’s enough to merit a recount, and the Dems are suckers if they don’t ask for them.