Varyk @ Varyk @sh.itjust.works

帖子

45

评论

5,048

加入于

2 yr. ago

sure, kind of.

that all obligly agrees with what I've been saying.

you finally read some of those sources?

I'm very pro better late than never, good on you.

in the future, I'd appreciate it if you read things you comment on first before making claims based on assumptions.

have a good one

"Feel free to source it with concrete probable claims"

19 credible sources are available throughout the paper that you didn't read and you are mosinformed about both the stolen voting machine data and the fake electors scheme.

if you don't know any of this, you're out of your depth here.

"concrete evidence of interference."

Great, there is a mountain of concrete evidence of election and ballot interference over the past several years, up to today.

from 4 years ago, then 2 years ago, then during the 2024 election, and in between.

you're not making any sense.

the open letter and even wikipedia directly provides the evidence you claim to be interested in.

"Yes. It was never put into practice. Trump did try to institute a coup, but failed."

nope, you are entirely incorrect here as well.

The fake electors scheme was put into practice nationally. fake electors mailed out false ballots to NARA and Mike Pence in an effort to steal the election before the real ballots arrived in the mail.

The National Archives discovered that the ballots were false and negated them.

The fake electore scheme absolutely went into practice, people have admitted to participating in it, taken guilty plea deals and are still going through trials because of their participation in the fake electors scheme.

If you need more clarification, ask questions but for goodness' sake, read something first so you have a baseline of knowledge before you talk about something.

you're entirely misinformed with regard to recent election interference.

yeah, these data leaks are all about break into iOS specifically to access iCloud data and accounts, I don't know about their backup servers.

If they can get the data up front, why go around the back?

The iCloud leak from 2014 was all leaked login information also, it's why they finally implemented encryption.

oh but Apple officially says that the 2014 attack was only due to fishing and brute Force attacks.

idk, enforcing encryption directly after that was a good idea, but I doubt they would do it unless it was necessary or vulnerable.

awesome, thank you, it does make a difference.

a manual recount seems in order and not a huge ask.

you are either being disingenuous or wildly uninformed.

Iit's okay if you don't like that one scientist. because there are dozens of other computer security experts who have come to the same conclusion, that since Trump's lawyers admitted to hiring people to steal voting software used by 90% of voters in swing states, manual recounts should be implemented.

The Republicans have zero evidence of election interference.

democrats have straight up factual evidence of ballot, interference and electoral fraud.

do you know about how W won the 2004 election?

do you know about the fake elector scheme 4 years ago?

have you ever heard of gerrymandering?

voter poll purging?

Republican ballot interference has happened every election for decades, and it looks like it happened on a wider scale this time.

I feel like I read a new article with Apple IDs being leaked every year.

looks like there there have been six major apple data leaks since the 2014 incident you're talking about, so a major leak based on exploits every year and a half, and then there's also all the individual articles that pop up with someone saying they received notification that they're iCloud data or Apple ID was leaked, which I don't know the frequency of but I see all the time.

https://firewalltimes.com/apple-data-breach-timeline

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254140360?sortBy=rank

seems to happen fairly often.

I mean the voting software stolen is undeniably true, since they admitted doing it themselves and there's evidence of Trump's lawyers hiring people to steal the voting software.

nothing might come of it, but I still talk about how W stole his election because his brother was the governor of florida and stopped ballot counting in that state, so if this election was stolen, we might as well have indisputable proof like we have of Florida in 2004.

If you don't like that guy, you you can look to all the other security experts that are calling for a manual recount.

incidentally, spoonamore isn't known for making that claim every election, he's made it twice, The other time was in 2004 when ballot interference occurred.

you can go read the other three people, they literally agreed with me.

you're the only one pretending that the fake electors scheme didn't happen and that manipulating voting software is impossible if you have the voting software for 3 years.

"I don't think it's plausible "

you didn't even understand how software manipulation worked until I explained it to you in ice cream.

I'm going to believe all of the computer scientists brave enough to write an open letter saying that software based voting manipulation is plausible.

"I'll take my own advice and not waste any more time"

I remember you telling me you weren't going to talk to me anymore a dozen comments back.

"stupid conspiracy theories of your useless elections. I'd suggest you'd do the same, sugarplum."

there are conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts, Jack.

have fun believing facts aren't real.

actually must be pretty fun.

what are you talking about?

you called me sugar.

you are implying that you get to police what gender people find acceptable?

besides, I literally said those are the facts Jack.

which is a very common phrase and Jack isn't even a gendered name.

Why are you assigning gender to it?

"You're closer to Trump's ideology than I am"

Trump is obsessed with gender.

I'm not.

you seem obsessed with gender.

so who's closer to trump?

go ahead and call me sugar, Jack.

Why is Jack used in a common phrase a gendered name to you?

do you get angry if people say "guys" to a mixed group?

your concerns seem unnecessarily exhausting. for you.

true that. exactly.

do the manual recounts since the software was compromised and tons of computer specialists are worried about that and let's put it to rest.

"Guess which one is horrible?"

are they the ones you're making up?

"That's what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims"

literally what you said in the last comment, you're calling yourself a mad man.

"Sugar, you're adorable"

Thanks, Jack.

"Willie doesn't care."

you should, Willie. it means you've basically been arguing against yourself this whole time because you didn't know that it's all already happened before.

don't be a trump, take personal responsibility and adjust your behavior accordingly.

your gender?

what the tangent are you talking about?

okay, you don't understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.

dang, really?

I'm going to try and analogize this....

okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.

so let's say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

If you pull the chocolate tap, you'll get chocolate ice cream.

If you pull the vanilla tap, you'll get vanilla ice cream.

let's say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.

so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.

The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it's giving you the output that you want.

so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.

does that make sense?

you can do the same thing with a computer program.

you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.

*courtroom admissions

okay, that one was pretty bad.

sorry, I've got like three other people who have never heard of the fake elector's plot talking to me at the same time as you are, so I have to basically explain it over and over to you guys.

and then you're like yeah. but what about conspiracies not being real?

haha, nope, there are groups of people that do things together.

happens all the time.

so you don't mind edits, but then you tell me that you specifically think me editing my comments is a terrible way to write?

yeah dude if you don't understand what I'm saying that's on you.

"I'd like a quote."

bully for you. I'm not getting bogged down in your tangential nitpicking.

Jack.

what, did I guess your actual name accidentally? The most common name in the states?

maybe don't broadcast that.

it's insane you don't know about the fake electors scheme and you have the hollow temerity to speak about politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

okay, but I guess if you don't even know about the fake electric spot I understand why you keep making things up and don't understand what I'm talking about.

I'll let the rest of this slide

go read up on the conspiracy that involved voting and fabricating votes 4 years ago, maybe you'll find it less outlandish that your buddy Trump might be trying it again.

diaper? is that what magaheads are called now?

no, that one looks good.

edit: forgot a comma

1.you're being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.

2. do you think you win arguments by running down tangents and just ignoring all the facts or relevant topics?

haha, because I'll tell you, that's not how you do it.

again the facts:

4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.

2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.

now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.

you don't like this one other scientist guy.

fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.

but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?

also real, whether you like it or not.