1.you’re being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.
do you think you win arguments by running down tangents and just ignoring all the facts or relevant topics?
haha, because I’ll tell you, that’s not how you do it.
again the facts:
4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.
2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.
now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.
you don’t like this one other scientist guy.
fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.
but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?
I’d like for people not lying about shit they said.
Edit: so you think that shit went puplic 4 years ago and didn’t even work back then would work now, when everybody knows he already tried to pull that shit?
I don’t understand how the software sourcecode having leaked means that machines have been compromized. That only means thatecurity through obscurity policies won’t work anymore. But that’s a horrible policy.
okay, you don’t understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.
dang, really?
I’m going to try and analogize this…
okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.
so let’s say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
If you pull the chocolate tap, you’ll get chocolate ice cream.
If you pull the vanilla tap, you’ll get vanilla ice cream.
let’s say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.
so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.
The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it’s giving you the output that you want.
so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.
does that make sense?
you can do the same thing with a computer program.
you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.
1.you’re being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.
haha, because I’ll tell you, that’s not how you do it.
again the facts:
4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.
2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.
now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.
you don’t like this one other scientist guy.
fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.
but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?
also real, whether you like it or not.
I don’t like you assuming my gender, homie.
I’d like for people not lying about shit they said.
Edit: so you think that shit went puplic 4 years ago and didn’t even work back then would work now, when everybody knows he already tried to pull that shit?
I don’t understand how the software sourcecode having leaked means that machines have been compromized. That only means thatecurity through obscurity policies won’t work anymore. But that’s a horrible policy.
your gender?
what the tangent are you talking about?
okay, you don’t understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.
dang, really?
I’m going to try and analogize this…
okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.
so let’s say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
If you pull the chocolate tap, you’ll get chocolate ice cream.
If you pull the vanilla tap, you’ll get vanilla ice cream.
let’s say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.
so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.
The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it’s giving you the output that you want.
so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.
does that make sense?
you can do the same thing with a computer program.
you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.
Yes. My gender. Don’t call me Jack.
Sugar, I’m an embedded software engineer. Try mansplaining tosomeone else.
The source code was leaked. It didn’t say anything about compromized firmware being flashed.
go ahead and call me sugar, Jack.
Why is Jack used in a common phrase a gendered name to you?
do you get angry if people say “guys” to a mixed group?
your concerns seem unnecessarily exhausting. for you.
You don’t get to police what gender people find acceptable to be called. You’re closer to Trump’s ideology than I am if you don’t get that.
what are you talking about?
you called me sugar.
you are implying that you get to police what gender people find acceptable?
besides, I literally said those are the facts Jack.
which is a very common phrase and Jack isn’t even a gendered name.
Why are you assigning gender to it?
“You’re closer to Trump’s ideology than I am”
Trump is obsessed with gender.
I’m not.
you seem obsessed with gender.
so who’s closer to trump?