And here's the article I've read https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/ptsd-drug-treatment/&ved=2ahUKEwjB0PnV_qTcAhVIVH0KHU2dD0cQFjANegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tp4oQ75Om7CK0qF_VH7uv

*theyre

fuck im dyslexic af

I am so used to just ignore typos and misspellings in the chat by now

Does anyone care about spelling in forums anymore? I still remember when intentional misspelling was a meme.

yeah i just have to correct myself lol habit

In other news, I had some videos queued up and saw Tim's video on Minds. Is anyone on it and have an opinion?

yeah im on minds

if it was more active id use it more

i just have it to possibly promote my music stuff if it picks up more

also id be keen to see people on here's opinions on teh possibility of voting online

i mean personally i dont see it being possible now even with our technology just because of the amount of traffic theyd have to have master teir servers for them not to crash

and if one does crash does that void all those votes or teh election as a whole??

It's too dangerous for major issues in my opinion.

Too easy to potentially manipulate.

And if there's anything of value at stake, interested parties WILL find a way to compromise the process.

At the very least, in person voting is a small barrier to some forms of manipulation.

yeah indeed

You could make a similar argument for voting by mail, but that's got a bit more control involved because ballots are usually mailed by the sec. of state, which helps limit potential abuse.

Voting online is a horrible idea

Voting by mail is even worse

I suggest sticking to electronic ballot machines

They have the least chance of being compromised

And can be physically guarded

Personally, I think most US elections are too easy to vote in already. And there are districts where the number of registered votes exceeds the number of residents already.

One proposal I've seen is to mandate that electronic voting machines require physical tickets as a record.

Which seems like a good idea to me.

And when the potential to manipulate elections presents itself, people will manipulate them. Heck, 4Chan manipulates online polls just because it can.

The benefits are quite good for voting online. But yes, worries of compromise are pretty major.

Also, also you really shouldnt conflate 'online polls'

with the security likely involved in a election.

You'd probably have to sign in with a government account, or social security number

It wouldnt be 'easy' to compromise

But its more plausible for mass fraud to happen that way then when voting with ballots

Think about how many dead people will be voting

SSN would be very easy to compromise, IMO. In the US we don't have government IDs beyond that either.

I've seen government security. I wouldn't trust it to get a ballot to everyone who needs it and still be robust enough to not be compromised by some intelligence service somewhere.

If voting was done online

Offense > defense.

"Oh no the dead people"
Sure it might happen more, but its quite rare as is.

Also

It's rare because we don't vote online ya fag

The most secure way i can think of, having novice knowledge of these sorts of things

Is to hand out physical items (Some kind of card) every year

To every citizen

With a very long string of numbers on it or something

It's not as rare as you think.

That they have to input when voting

Not gonna work

Why not?

It's cards

So?

You'd have to do something better.

Common sense

No one would actually care

If it's cards you could easily start by intercepting the cards or reverse engineering the numbers.

And you can fuck with the numbers

No, you cannot.

You might make an argument if you had RSA tokens or something.

I dont think you understand this method

Say you have 300k citizens

But I've seen enough stuff get compromised I wouldn't trust 300 mil RSA tokens to be a workable defense against a determined opponent.

But you set out a number with however many digits, that results in 10 trillion possibile combinations

You have the 'real' answers recorded on whatever is tracking the vote.

And the cards sent out

And you match the numbers to the records. Yeah, but how are you making the numbers.

There's going to inevitably be a pattern (the people who run these things tend to be lazy)

And you just have to figure it out.

mayeb a blockchain generation algorhythm would work

It doesn't even have to be 100% decoded, just enough to flip a couple strategic locations.

i mean has bitcoin been hacked ???

You obviously couldnt be lazy. But if you had this setup by people who are familiar with digital security, i doubt that'd end up being the issue.

"if it's easy to figure out people will just figure it out" - that's not a very compelling argument

^

If you talk with people in digital security they'll tell you to assume you've been compromised from the start.

There was one where double spending was found out.

And you have to keep things simple enough non-technical people can figure it out.

That's only for the user interface on the other side.

And it is simple, you have a physical card with say a 30 digit number

You type it in

You get to vote

Confirm

Its done

non-technical people don't need to understand how it works. How many people understand how a credit card works?

And credit card information gets leaked all the time from various hacker collectives and rogue agents.

The card probably wouldnt have your name on it, and you'd likely also have to enter your first and last name as a extra precaution

E-voting booths?

How would you even know it's running the correct software?

?

Maybe. But what's the difference between that and electronic voting machines?

The fact they're networked?

You dont have to go anywhere, sit in a long line.
Also this isnt a voting machine

This would be a website or some such

haha just the fact its networked seems liek a bad idea

That's the main concern really

Lots of way to abuse a site.

Physical machines are enough

I wouldn't trust online

If they're connected over the normal internet, that's an entry point. Otherwise there's no obvious advantage to an e-voting booth. You'd still have to show up in person.

electronics as well.

If somebody can manage to break into the website you're in trouble obviously.

E voting isn't a good idea, period

You dismiss it without giving it much thought though.

Unless it's a utopia where no one wants to fuck over the elections

I'm imagining the electoral system will still be in place?

Presumably.

I would trust E voting for groups that are fundamentally online and have low stakes. Say, if Tim wanted to have a poll on this server to decide a topic for a future video or something.

But when things start to really matter, when intelligence services get interested...sometimes backwards is better.

Even if you aren't a hostile power, imagine the potential for a couple rogue employees at Google to manipulate elections in their favor to get a favorable regulatory environment and make a profit.

physical can be observed by several actors in its processing. Digital can't.

And a company like Google (or whomever is making the website) would certainly have the capapbilty

Digital... Actually kind of can.

It's not as easy mind you.

You trace digital, but it's somewhat imperfect. It's impractical to assume you'd be able to verify 300mil votes.

yeah thats assuming everyone would vote

but you would have to

I dunno about that, you said verify

in terms of building a stable network infastructure

Sure. But suppose it's 100mil. That's still alot.

And verifying it wouldnt be altogether that hard really.

I think we need to distinguish verify and "verify"

I mean, ensuring the entire path hasn't been tampered with.

Verify implies that you go ask them/confirm it somehow

that some huawei switch somewhere hasn't had a diversion through China.

No because you have to see if it's valid at the voting hardware, its software, the network, the server, etc.

That someone hasn't altered the hashes and stamps and rerouted things.

Not "verify" in the sense that you're checking who's on the record. That's conceptually simple, hard in practice.

No no

I mean literally

Asking somebody

IE; Sending them a text asking if they voted

2FA?

I'd assumed that from the start.

If fraud was comitted on a significant scale, you could catch it doing that.

Or at least know it happened

lol that just seems counter prodictive though, i mean teh goal of E-voting would be to make it easy and simple for every citizen to vote

Maybe. It's hard to say.

Paper seems simple enough.

ideally when we have the technology if its even possible you wouldnt need that sort of verification

I will say that if you require everyone to have a phone the politicos will immediately go up in arms about poor people not being represented. Or old people.

The issue isnt really paper vs digital, the issue is that traditional voting requires people to show up at a booth and wait in line

or rural communities

And alot of people, especially for more local elections

Just... Dont

People don't go to vote because of convenience.

i mean ive been involved in a local election and that was a hassle enough in terms of recounting and having the proper officials present and all that shit

E-voting would just exponentiate all those problems imp

*imo

In the US the turnout is something like 60ish% for presidential, 40ish% for midterms

And significantly lower for things like mayoral elections

Alot of that for local elections is that people just don't think much is at stake.

i thought it was more like 30%

fo rpresidential

*for pesidential

The country has nationalized and local politics just aren't seen as important for most people.

**presidential

fml

It's really a case of the decline of local authority than anything.

People don't know what states are for either

yeah when really its the most effective way to actually effect change in your community

And there's usually not big fireworks issues and you're easily shown to look like a fool if you don't know what's going on.

"However, those 138 million Americans only make up 58.1% of our voting-eligible population (those American citizens over 18). From United States Elections Project."

That was the 2016 US election

Yah, I'm of the stance the decline of local politics is a real tragedy. It would solve alot of problems, IMO

ahh kk i see idk where i saw the 30% bs

30% is going to be about the fraction for any given side.

well i guess its 30% for each party at that point rounding up

adn disregarding independant votes

30-30-30-10 is a surprisingly common ratio, actually.

'Disregarding independant votes'

yeah thats more what its like in canada here

I think most things in politics break along those lines. 30 pro, 30 against, 30 just want to be left alone, 10 actually decide the result.

"Voter turnout rose sharply in the 2015 federal election to 68.5%, the highest turnout since 1993."

Higher then US

(Canada)

LOL yeah trudeau got people out to vote

i tell ya the legal weed thing really got ppl out LOL

To be completely cynical though. We hear about how people vote for candidates "because s/he looks better" Would we really want to try and push more people who don't want to be bothered into voting?

It's kind of silly in a way, but yeah, it probably did.

So that's what he meant by "letting them win"

Makes ya think

imagine if trump ran on federal legal weed next election

i mean hed lose the fundy christian vote

Not inconcievable. TX Republicans put it on their platform.

but man the amount he'd gain lol

Yeah i dont have the answer to that Pratel, though i think that alot of people that should vote dont during local elections

also the libertarian vote

"If you kill your enemies, they win" turns a rather sinister twist when you apply this logic to the elections

Is Trudeau a mafia boss by any chance?

(almost wrote librarian vote) hahahaha

Wat

What the crap are you talking about Uksio?

Trudeau's famous quote

LOL man i live in teh french province in canada and the whole english/french divide is a huge issue here

Nah. He's Sun Tzu

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-The-Art-of-War-say-to-never-put-your-enemy-in-a-corner

Trudeau didnt say that

Im pretty sure

like he refused to answer questions in english in my township and our township is the most enlgish speaking part of QC after Montreal

And if he did, it was probably in a middle east context or something?

its was big story here lol being english is essentially a rpotected class

https://www.quora.com/Did-Justin-Trudeau-really-say-If-you-kill-your-enemies-they-win

theres actually a law called loi 101 (law 101) that is meant to protect french heritage by only allowing people whos parents went to english school (public or private) to go to english schools

what it actually does is give us special rights though

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/dan_quayle

My alumni right here

its like a classic SJW esque scenario because they wanted to protect the french which is a minority in canada but really it just gives engish people the option of both going to english or french school

hence there are more anglophones that are perfectly bilingual then there are francophones

so we have better job prospects not only in our province but also in NA

mind you the speaking french part is only really to frill up your CV if you leave quebec. unless u go to new orleans or somewhere theres a traditional french minority

IDK, can you spin it to show you're an international asset when it comes to doing business with France?

yeah potentially though really once they hear you speak quebecois french theyd prolly want to do buisness with you even less

on the otherhadn there isnt really tht prejudice with the ex france island colonies

hm.

tbh its really interesting politically here just because the sort of hyper-partisan polarised politics has been par for the course since the war of 1812

*LOL i mean seven years war

when great britan gained control of new france which is now quebec and essentially said all the french people already here could stay

like theres been a couple close calls where there's been a refferendom on teh seperation of Quebec proposed.

one was actually pretty recently but really there was one in like 1994 where it was like 50.1% against and 48.9% against succeding from canada

funny because then the canadian stereotype of maple syrup wouldnt really make sense because Quebec produces like 90% of the maple syrup in canada

lol.

I wouldn't necessarily sit though. We seem to be in an era of separatist movements. Scotland, Britain, Catalan. This could be the point when something like that happens.

Heck, #calexit was trending for a bit. And state of Jefferson is effectively on the ballot.

And California isn't really that distinct.

LOL if that happens im fucked lol i live in a town that was a hub for british loyalists looking to escape the US so there actually is a large english heritage here

we are the only part of my town that has its municipal news in both english and french

the english are just beta americans...

beta version...

americans are english 1.0

like when the sepreatist party got in power here was from like (2012 to 2015ish)

the colonists were english release candidates

english stopsigns were outlawed

ironic because stop was a word commonly used in french after the norman invasion of britain in the 600s

sorry i mean 1066

there was also this big controversy about the language commision saying that restaurants cant have the word spaghetti in their name

Interesting. Would this part of Quebec be close enough to secede from Quebec and join a larger english-speaking contingent?

@Scarlet It is a meme that spawned from an interview with Trudeau, where after evading the direct answer to whether Canada should bomb ISIS or not he answered with "Call us old-fashioned, but we think that we ought to avoid doing precisely what our enemies want us to do. They want us to elevate them, to give in to fear, to indulge in hatred, to eye one another with suspicion and to take leave of our faculties,"

LOL man nah its a town of liek 5,000 people that actually used to be its own town but like 8 or nine years ago bacame a part of the larger surrounding town

Another version of it is "hug the terrorists because they feel left out"

Yeah, you'd get crushed. Probably just relocated or something.

and its 90% francophone lol we are pretty much the 10% of anglophones here in lennoxville

got the oldest brewery in QC second oldest in canada lol

haha well im luckier because i can speak french well enough for the police to not be prejudiced against me lol saved my ass a couple of times hahah

to think i can be a straight white male and be oppresed by the police LOL

if i didnt speak french

or spoke it really badly with an english accent

hm. Quebec is a strange place.

That's languagist!

OH fuck yeah thats just a small part of it LOL

im ready for the end of quebec

But it's fine, discriminating on culture is ok

we got great weed tho 😎 👌

to be fair though i know alot of francophones that know english but cant speak it well that love when i just switch from french to english and back mid sentance lol which i have to do to not sound like a retard in french. the english emmersion i went thru fucked my french skills in the ass

lol i just hate the spereatists lol they essentially think im an abomination lol

but if it comes to seperation im prolly gonna stick around unless my parents move, my family runs teh oldest restaurant in my town. not to mention my moms the manager at a sick fucking beer hall. the kinda thing thats really common in europe but rare here with mroe than a hundred different hard alcohols and 30 or so beers on tap