You're describing a transparency log, which doesn't require a blockchain.

A transparency log, as I understand them, requires a centralized actor; which makes it easier to fudge numbers and introduce false participants.

No, because each participant can check its contribution in the log.

Everybody gets a copy of a verifiable hash etc when voting, allowing voters to mathematically check their vote.

The kind of knowledge allowing to design such clever algorithms is the real meaning of the word "crypto" (cryptography).

I see what you're saying now, I was imagining the type of transparency log that's usually run by a single institution and audited by a few others.

Even if every voter gets a hash and can check that their vote is in the log, you still have a bunch of places where a central actor can misbehave: Deciding who gets to write to the log in the first place, rate-limiting or dropping submissions, or running split-view logs in the event that there's not a ton of replication - hoping that wouldn't be the case in an election.

With a (properly designed) blockchain, you at least push those assumptions into a consensus layer with many writers/validators and game-theory penalties for rewriting its history. It's still not magic; but for something like elections, I'd rather minimize the points where a single operator can tilt the playing field, which is why I was thinking "blockchain" instead of "centralized transparency log"

These kind of things are part of transparency log threat models, for example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6962.html#page-24.

No, just publish the hash of the full log. No blockchain required at all. Anybody can check they are seeing the same log as others by checking the log hash.

Sometimes it's impossible even with an account. I can't search in English on my phone in Japan. If I go into options and change the language, the moment I click OK, it switches everything right back to Japanese. I know multiple colleagues who've had the same issue for years.

It's incredibly rude, and wrong, to assume that a woman was hired because she "checks off a bunch of HR checkboxes" rather than skill or hard work when you know nothing about her.

Not just a woman, but an Asian woman. Let's not even begin to think of her as an individual.

The comment is not merely rude, it's blatant bigotry.

An iolist isn't a string, you can't pass it to the uppercase function for instance. It's really meant for I/O as the name implies. Regular string concatenation is optimized to avoid copying when possible: https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/binaryhandling.html#constr...

> This by itself means that it is not potable

Do you mean because it's distilled? Distilled water is perfectly safe to drink.

Yes, that comment is whack.

And "resalinated" is nonsense. Water isn't safe because it contains salts.

From: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-nuclear-plant-worker-fell-...

> According to federal reports, the contractor ingested some of the reactor water before being yanked out, scrubbed down, and checked for radiation. They walked away with only minor injuries and about 300 counts per minute of radiation detected in their hair.

> That sounds like a lot, but apparently it isn't terribly serious. He underwent a decontamination scrubdown and was back on the job by Wednesday.

One-time pads are not vulnerable to gardening.

Personally I found the article informative and well-written. I had been wondering for a while why Claude Code didn't more aggressively use sub-agents to split work, and it wasn't obvious to me (I don't build agents for a living).

I've done a lot of Erlang and I don't see the relation? Supervisors are an error isolation tool, they don't perform the work, break it down, combine results, or act as a communication channel. It's kind of the point that supervisors don't do much so they can be trusted to be reliable.

There's a free tier, and various paid tiers: https://github.com/features/copilot/plans