The solution in Australia is simpler - you don't submit the vote that you took a photo of. You can get a ballot, fill it out the "right" way, take a photo, erase the markings, write on your preferred vote, and submit that.
Even if you ignore the pencil they give you and use a pen, you can simply tear or damage the paper, take it back to the elections officer, ask for a new ballot, and fill that out instead. We make it as hard as possible to coerce a vote while maintaining secret voting (noting that it is definitely still possible, just hard).
Are there no polling stations where you can submit the ballot in a private location, like a drop box inside a booth or whatever? In the US I've only voted electronically, and it's done in a private booth with a curtain preventing external visibility, so somebody can easily video record the entire process with no realistic way of altering their vote.
No, the booths where you fill out your ballot are on one side of the room, and the ballot boxes are on the other, supervised by an election officer, and near the exit. You:
- collect blank ballots (usually 2 pieces of paper, one for the House, one for the Senate) at the entry,
- walk over to the booth,
- fill out your ballot in secret at the booth (taking as long as you like),
- fold the ballots,
- walk over to the ballot boxes,
- drop the folded ballots into the corresponding box (House ballot in the House box and Senate ballot in the Senate box),
- then leave.
As no-one sees what you write at the booth, you can vote legally, draw pictures on your ballot, write obscenities, write nothing, or a combination.
> It's easy to assume making a word disappear is always the right choice, but you forget it changes the word it leaves behind as well. Very clever.
It's also easy to make the opposite assumption, that the goal is to change the other word. I initially felt weird about changing from a letter at position 3 to the same letter at position 1, but eventually realised that the goal is just to slide the word around, not necessarily to make a new word.
Observational psychometrics over a long enough timeframe (e.g. social media profile lifetimes) probably include periods of challenge or stress, which may help the predictive behaviour.
This is a little different since the Apps SDK lets developers create specialized tool calls to their servers, and create specialized in-chat UI components. It's an evolution of the same concept as the GPT store, but a very different take on the idea.
With all the talk of how there must be something to new tech because of the VC money that is being funnelled into it, it's worth revisiting the insane misalignment between VC's incentives and what the rest of us are looking at.
Especially when analysts throw out incredibly optimistic estimates for the future of a technology, the expected value of a 0.1% chance of success in a potential trillion dollar market is a billion dollars, so of course it makes sense to have a stake in that, backed by a properly diversified portfolio.
It is the exact same flow. I think a lot of things in programming follow that pattern. The other one I can think of is identifying the commit that introduces a regression: write the test program, git-bisect.
We do get occasional issues with individuals trying stuff, but the AEC is very good at calling it out or prosecuting it.
It's strong enough that the parties don't try anything risky.
reply