this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
279 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

85615 readers
3246 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 17 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I actually don’t like this XKCD, this is a bad answer to why electronic voting is bad.

Mostly because it is a largely obtuse process that most people can’t see or understand.

“Trust the magic rock is counting fairly and that bad people who would want to manipulate it in order to obtain power and conquer you haven’t had a chance to do so.” You cannot code your way out of that.

Everyone understands marks on paper. No one understands buffer overrun RCE, resistive touchscreen calibration, or database triggers and log sharding.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 19 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

While I see what you're getting at, I still like this XKCD. I work as a developer, and have also worked in more "handy" fields. The thing with planes, elevators, and basically all other physical things is that they're limited by physics. A steel beam can't suddenly decide to spontaneously fail or disappear.

With code, that can feel pretty different. With experience, I've basically learned to assume that there is always some edge-case I haven't considered, that could trigger a bug. In a building, you can have redundant bolts, and over-dimensioned supports. A small mistake somewhere, a single missing bolt, won't cause a catastrophic failure. With code, it's different: A tiny, hard to notice mistake, can bring the whole think crashing down. Imagine if a plane could crash because the paint had a slightly non-uniform thickness...

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

A good example of software failing where traditional systems were more reliable is when Boeing tried to rely on it with MCAS on the 737 max