3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- I am pretty sure that if anybody wants to change a plane or an elevator that it crashes they are able to do so, however, there is not really any benefit to do so. Software for voting is as easy to change as an elevator or an airplane but the stakes are way higher. It just isn't less safe, as we use software for almost anything, but just isn't fit for voting. It is like putting your vote in an elevator and expecting someone on the upper floor to take your vote and count it. Would the building engineers still say the elevator is perfectly safe (for voting)?2w
- hmm not sure. If bridges had as many bugs as software does, there'd be a lot less bridges left ;)2w
- haha true. However, bridges are a bit easier to test (just need to manage certain force) while software needs to be safe for all known and unknown attacks. Good designs prevent lots of potential effects and QA of code helps a lot, but it is not really possible to assure 100% safety.
And the strip was about computerized voting with which you need to trust many parties who can make changes to the software somehow. Even when the programmer is 100% sure the code is safe doesn't mean the final software is safe to use.2w
- If Software engineers were required to have similar qualifications as civil engineers that would be a good start.2w
Add a comment...