Control. If you can centralize all voting results in a single place you can control distribution of them. If you are the only entity able to read the results then everyone else has to take your word for it.
Paper ballots with physical marks are easy to track and recount. Digital paper trails are ephemeral. Whom does this benefit? The people counting the ballots.
As the article notes, the Swiss do both. The normal system is a paper ballot based system. This was for secure e-voting for those unable to use paper ballots.
The separate question, of why people are obsessed with it - implicitly in the United States - is a separate question.
sonofhans - to reply to your follow up here, I mostly agree with you. But I would soften it to say it is a tool that can be used for good or bad ends, and I felt the Swiss were using it more towards good ends. But I agreed that the ability to misuse it is intrinsic.
In Switzerland, it is only done in few cantons and only up to 30% of the population.[1]
I have no idea how it is intended, but I personally interpret it like this:
- It is mostly an experiment so far.
- If it fails (thinking about exploitation), Switzerland does not lose a lot and just goes back to 100% paper-voting.
- It is a free service to other countries to show what e-voting can be in best-case.
- It does not show what could happen in worst-case.
- The riskiest part of this experiment is the interpretation.
> The separate question, of why people are obsessed with it - implicitly in the United States - is a separate question.
It’s not a United States issue. Look how Taiwan does vote counting: https://youtu.be/DUZa7qIGAdo. They don’t do it this way because of anything distinctive about American politics. Being self-evidently difficult to manipulate, without requiring voters to trust an opaque system, is an intrinsic benefit for voting systems.
I must say, the irony of this comment in a thread about Apple moving down-market without losing quality is … well, it burns. Along with the arrogance: “Anyone who can’t afford 8GB isn’t worthy of being my customer,” is literally the opposite of what Steve Jobs always said.
I was stuck once in a cabin in the woods with an old Android phone. I’m glad it still worked, and that people curating software experiences for it had more empathy — and more business sense — than this comment displays.
Didn’t Steve Jobs basically say Apple didn’t know how to make a good computer for $500 and used that as a justification to not sell any products to the lowest priced area of the market?
There’s no irony here. The plain fact exists that 8GB of RAM has been considered not an especially exotic amount lot even on cheap on laptops and desktops for about a decade if not longer.
$450 in 2015 would have bought you a Dell laptop with 6GB of upgradable memory:
The point was that Apple has completely been uninterested in the bottom of the laptop market from 1976 to 2026, and there is therefore no irony in my statement that many businesses including Apple will purposefully ignore customers who do not have enough money to buy their stuff.
From the first comment I responded to:
> “Anyone who can’t afford 8GB isn’t worthy of being my customer,” is literally the opposite of what Steve Jobs always said.
This commenter is wrong. This idea that the bottom of the market is below Apple is almost exactly what the quote from the earnings call said. Jobs effectively said “we only make mid to high end computers, someone else can take the serve the budget customers.”
This is why I pointed out that most people employed making commercial software don’t have to concern themselves with the needs and desires of users on desperately outdated hardware, since those users can’t afford your product anyway.
Of course, at the time Jobs was alive that number for RAM was below 8GB, but that specific number is not specifically relevant other than the fact that I brought it up as a general example of the standard of the day from around 10 years ago.
I brought up a bunch of computing examples from the mid-2010s after Jobs’ death because they are about the oldest reasonable hardware you’d find around today, proof that even buyers of low-end hardware 10+ years ago were regularly getting more than 4GB of RAM.
Apple’s base model MacBook Air in 2017 had 8GB of RAM. The 2015 model started with 4GB configurable to 8GB. The 12” MacBook from 2016 had 8GB RAM.
So you literally have to go back a decade to find anything sold by Apple where getting less than 8GB was an option on the lowest possible configuration, never mind PC manufacturers who generally gave better specs per dollar and included socketed memory.
But hey, Apple shills will shout from the rooftops that a 2026 laptop with 8GB of RAM is a good deal just because it’s $500 if you lie about your status as a student and pinky promise with Apple that you’ll never use the computer for commercial usage.
No Steve Jobs said exactly what he said. The technology wasn’t to the point where they could offer products that aren’t junk. An unsubsidized $120 Android phone is “junk”. A $99 iPod Shuffle or a $300 low end iPad isn’t.
The Netbooks available in 2010 were junk even by that days standards.
The MacBook Neo which is fast enough, a better display than low end PCs and a good trackpad is not junk. It can do what most low end consumers care about well.
At least in the US, even during the SJ era you could get a “free” iPhone with a contract that anyone could afford - it was the last years phone
Well, here’s the thing…and, I apologize, this is a bit of a shift from what we were talking about.
The MacBook Neo is getting so much hype for being better than a low end PC, before it’s been put through its paces over the long term.
I had the same initial reaction. Wow, a Mac for $500, how incredible, how disruptive.
But then this morning I decided to look at the actual street pricing of laptops at my local Best Buy.
And here’s the thing: now that Apple has this machine with no haptic trackpad, no backlit keyboard, the worst screen available on any Apple product, very small keyboard, and very basic non-upgradable specs including a generations-old efficiency processor, I think the actual story here is that Apple has changed their mind and is willing to make a product that they would have previously called “junk.”
I’ll list off a couple of systems that I would absolutely buy as better machines over the MacBook Neo:
HP OmniBook X Flip, 16” 2K touch screen, Intel Core Ultra 5 226V, 16GB memory, 512GB storage, $699.
For the same price as the top model Neo you get double the RAM, a bigger and probably better screen, which is convertible and touch enabled. It is not some kind of bargain basement SKU, either, a legitimately well-reviewed laptop.
Right there in the pricing sweet spot you get more memory and basically all the benefits of an ARM architecture in another laptop that is well-regarded. You also get a number pad on the keyboard.
All these laptops have been getting well over 4.5 star reviews, like this one:
> This little guy has been amazing this semester plenty of power while being light and getting good battery life the quick charging feature is particularly impressive from almost dead to full in around half an hour all and all this laptop has met or exceeded all of my school life needs
Finally, this is probably my choice if I was in this segment:
Another great example of a laptop that is costing you less than the Neo’s top model before education discount, has better specs, and is again a legitimately good model of laptop solidly in the mid-range of the lineup, not a bargain basement SKU. I would actually be surprised if the Neo kept up with this particular model in terms of build quality, keyboard, etc.
The Neo’s main advantage is that it’s got a chassis made of aluminum, and that’s really its only differentiator. And I’d say that’s an overrated differentiator (e.g., plastic is lighter and isn’t automatically weaker/worse for long-term ownership).
Just looking at the first one - the screen is worse, it’s heavier and the processor is slower. Of course PC mags always grade crappy intel based PCs on a curve. Actually all of the screens are worse.
This is not analogous to tinnitus. I remember before and after tinnitus, and it’s as different from visual snow as real snow is from an ice pick in your ear.
WRT “mechanical damage” — I feel you. Standing in front of the stage feeling your organs vibrate in time to the music is fucking magic. I won’t say that it’s worth the tinnitus, but I am happy I have some memories of a trade-off, you know?
FWIW I still go to shows sometimes, and stand right in front of the stage to feel my eyeballs vibrating. I wear good ear protection, though, and feel no pain. Even though the music isn’t quite the same.
> I wear good ear protection, though, and feel no pain.
Yeah, I've got a variety of Etymotic "concert" ear plugs (mainly ER20s), a collection of Loop ear plugs, some from Flare (titanium, aluminium), and various other of differing construction that live in my "gig bag" (small bag that holds phone etc. without causing security to freak out.) I find that if I don't wear ear plugs at a gig or even the cinema, I'll have terrible pain overnight and I'll be useless the next day.
(Hell, even bus or train journeys can require ear plugs some days.)
But this is a magic shovel that digs holes and tunnels all by itself exactly as intended. It should be able to do this without any special skill involved in prompting it.
You're thinking post-scarcity. We aren't there yet, but one say well have a magic wand, magic shovel, and magic anything else that is currently scarce.
Sorry, I don't follow how a sarcastic joke about the claims of post-scarcity would make me a ludite or imply that I am saying models today aren't useful for certain tasks.
That makes sense. I guess I usually think of developing policies for this kind of thing to be pretty much what staff would do. I don’t usually expect the CTO to make decisions about how to do testing. To the extent the engineering leadership are to blame, it’s that they were the ones who hired/retained this guy. The buck ultimately stops with them to be sure, but making these kinds of policies seems within the remit of a staff eng.
Paper ballots with physical marks are easy to track and recount. Digital paper trails are ephemeral. Whom does this benefit? The people counting the ballots.
reply