Ask anyone if their vote was counted. The only honest answer is, "I'm not sure." That is concerning.

Seems like a good kind of work to spread, thanks for sharing.

In the last election, I was able to tell that my early-voting paper ballot actually reached the counting machine because of the receipt system.

That doesn't cover every failure mode, but it's pretty good compared to nothing.

(And do you really think calling any other answer dishonest is going to help the discussion?)

What if every vote had an ID / random number attached to it, identifying you, and then when they are counted every number that was read and counted gets posted up on some database or broadcast, or even in paper form to be collected at another polling station, so you know for sure your vote counted?

Just spitballing here, because it seems like an easy problem to solve, the US is just notoriously stubborn when it comes to mixing up the election process.

>What if every vote had an ID / random number attached to it, identifying you

Votes must not be attributable to any given person, or else the potential for coercion exists.

I read GP as simply verifying that a particular ballot made it into the count, not verifying what the votes on that ballot happened to be. That seems less problematic with respect to buying or coercing votes. I'm not convinced that "lost ballots" are a big problem, but such a system would be a way of checking that.

Or vote buying.

That would destroy the secret ballot, so isn't appropriate for a democratic country.

Many developed democracies either never stopped using a pure paper ballot, or have gone back to it over the last decade or so. For all its flaws, it's easier to make safer than electronic voting.

I get something similar in CA. I can look online and see that I voted.

That’s public info and should be audited.

The part that remains secret is who/what I voted for.

Edit:clarity

This bit about before autosteer install airbag deployment counts coming from vehicles with 0 miles of before autosteer install distance is certainly odd, if true. "That is, simply because the data are missing for the Previous Mileage before Autosteer Install and the “Next Mileage after Autosteer Install,” NHTSA’s method of calculation assumes that all of the exposure mileage must belong to the “after Autosteer” category. The three airbag deployments without any exposure mileage in the “before Autosteer” category show this is not the case. " [pg.11-12]

The plot thickens there in Figure 3 where they suggest mistreatment of deployments/miles that occur between `Prev Mileage before Autosteer Install Reported` and `Next Mileage after Autosteer Install Reported` "result in estimates of the true exposure that are statistically biased downward – resulting in crash rates that are somewhat too large." [pg.13]

And then, Figure 4, 15 deployments are counted before instillation while no additional mileage is counted for the before instillation group. [pg.16] Could the NHTSA group really have done that? It give us an incredible rate of 15/0 deployments/mi without autosteer which violates some very important law of arithmetic, statistics and common sense.

I'm going to hold my breath until we see the data these claims are based on.

Remind me what the ROC curve looks like for `can` again.

alright, can we get the next study to show pigs are more intelligent than humans? shouldn't be too hard.

Why hexagons?

* Neighbor traversal

simplicity of neighbors; triangles 3 classes of neighbors, squares 2 classes of neighbors, hexagons only one class of neighbor!

* Subdivisions

Squares obviously do this pretty well but by alternating cw, cww rotations and allowing not quite perfect coverage they get to shard with different resolutions/hex sizes.

* Distortion

"most important" Basically the use case here is visualizations that maintain basic unit appearance. They even pick the location of their vertices to be over water minimizing land distortions.

source: https://youtu.be/ay2uwtRO3QE?t=11m53s

p.s. as `contravariant` said you can't tessellate a sphere with hexagons so they project onto a icosohedron with pentagons at each of the twelve vertices (positioned over water) https://youtu.be/ay2uwtRO3QE?t=23m00s

@ariwilson you work at google. since we're on the topic of truth and the actions of your corporate sponsor.

but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.

"We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."

'codelord:working on ml @google' haha. using accrued inertia/loyalty to bully/force `mit ocw` and `blender` to adopt more convenient terms for the company is, at minimum, a dick move.

but i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.

There are a lot of good reasons why monopolies should be regulated.

I meant why Google should pay for hosting free stuff

Probably a super unpopular opinion here on hn but your boss `aint completely wrong. It's not a bad strategy when considering starting a business relationship with someone or something you don't know much about.

Agreed. I expressed some concerns about the now dead "trusted by" section as well https://twitter.com/stephenrigsby/status/973640170648956929 .

Also why is your comment kinda-greyed out?