Picked via Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram, the story of a massive electronic vote miscount, luckily paper ballots were available
Vote totals in a Northampton County judge's race showed one candidate, Abe Kassis, a Democrat, had just 164 votes out of 55,000 ballots across more than 100 precincts. Some machines reported zero votes for him. In a county with the ability to vote for a straight-party ticket, one candidate's zero votes was a near statistical impossibility. Something had gone quite wrong.
The worse news:
The machines that broke in Northampton County are called the ExpressVoteXL and are made by Election Systems & Software, a major manufacturer of election machines used across the country. The ExpressVoteXL is among their newest and most high-end machines, a luxury "one-stop" voting system that combines a 32-inch touch screen and a paper ballot printer.
The good news was that the chairwoman of the county Republicans realized the numbers made no sense and promptly initiated an investigation. When officials counted the paper backup ballots generated by the same machines, they realized Kassis had narrowly won.
How many trees still need to die until humans learn how to do voting properly?
Note: the original story ran on nytimes, but I respect their choice to not let me read their stories with 'Do not track' activated
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @05:29PM (1 child)
I can give you random BS that says different: https://psmag.com/environment/young-trees-suck-up-more-carbon-than-old-ones [psmag.com]
And even your BS says:
There seem to be more holes in the "old is better" arguments. For example:
Which is a disingenuous/dishonest argument since if you don't burn that building down but landfill the wood instead, much of the carbon is sequestered too.
The opponents to "chop them down and regrow stores more CO2" need to calculate how much it CO2 is released converting that wood to various wood products (including transportation) and see whether it really is high enough to negate or even go past the difference in CO2 absorption of a young forest vs an old one.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 17 2019, @09:07PM
Which will be bullshit if you don't consider the vegetation in the under-storey of the forest; in the Amazons, that one is massive and rely on the old trees to develop. Not all forests are Canadian/Siberia tundra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford