it's more subtle than that. people have been talking about "checking for ballot fold" for weeks, by visually checking if ballots were fold-free.
now the guy comes up with a very complicated way to do the same thing that could be done just by eye. take a piece of paper, do you need equipment in order to know whether it has been folded or not?
well the guy is just talking about a multi-million dollar idea to check for ballot folds...
I'm all fine with this. The part where I'm cautious is where guys from our side start to argue everywhere that "but this highly recognized scientist and inventor said that........". instant decredibilisation.
it's more subtle than that. people have been talking about "checking for ballot fold" for weeks, by visually checking if ballots were fold-free.
now the guy comes up with a very complicated way to do the same thing that could be done just by eye. take a piece of paper, do you need equipment in order to know whether it has been folded or not?
well the guy is just talking about a multi-million dollar idea to check for ballot folds...
I'm all fine with this. The part where I'm cautious is where guys from our side start to argue everywhere that "but this highly recognized scientist and inventor said that........". instant decredibilisation.
Definitely a fair point. Validity of information and viability of solution exceeds credibility of witness every time.