3 ms·

didn’t I?

by dilap 9y ago

didn’t I?

IncRnd 9y ago
> didn’t I? No. You will need to perform a lot more work at system details, algorithms, interactions, interfaces, components, etc. Declaring "UUID" isn't really a design. It's not even a workable idea, yet. Here is one design for a voting system, which had been posted to HN last year. http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/nyu.pdf http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/nyu.pdf Some of my review of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144302
- dilap 9y ago
  Strange, it seemed specific enough to me that I felt like I could implement it! Your only actual criticism was > Unfortunately, this system is neither trustworthy nor correct, as adding new UUIDs to the rolls defeats the system. Which I explained was defended against by having counts at each voting site which could be compared to the online results. Your (non) response to that was non-specific attacks on the non-planness of my plan as a whole. Even non-planness attacks should be able to be made specific. You should be able to point to a specific unaccomplishable thing or missing detail... (Perhaps you could complain that I haven’t specified how to collect and save the voting site voter count tallies, which would be fair, but also seems solvable...)
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    I already mentioned the types of things that you didn't specify. You didn't specify any architecture, components, interactions, interfaces, etc. You didn't specify any protection mechanisms or state what threats would be protected against. I'm not going to do your work for you. You might find people willing to work with you, but the odds are slim until you have a unique idea or something more than a single sentence. Literally thousands of people have discussed UUIDs, including the two links that I sent to you.
    - dilap 9y ago
      > I'm not going to do your work for you. It's a high-level idea, dude. You made one specific critique, which I refuted, and now you're criticizing the idea as uncriticizable because it doesn't have enough of the details specified. Thanks for playing, I guess.

didn’t I?

by dilap 9y ago

didn’t I?

> didn’t I? No. You will need to perform a lot more work at system details, algorithms, interactions, interfaces, components, etc. Declaring "UUID" isn't really a design. It's not even a workable idea, yet. Here is one design for a voting system, which had been posted to HN last year. http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/nyu.pdf http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/nyu.pdf Some of my review of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144302

dilap 9y ago
Strange, it seemed specific enough to me that I felt like I could implement it! Your only actual criticism was > Unfortunately, this system is neither trustworthy nor correct, as adding new UUIDs to the rolls defeats the system. Which I explained was defended against by having counts at each voting site which could be compared to the online results. Your (non) response to that was non-specific attacks on the non-planness of my plan as a whole. Even non-planness attacks should be able to be made specific. You should be able to point to a specific unaccomplishable thing or missing detail... (Perhaps you could complain that I haven’t specified how to collect and save the voting site voter count tallies, which would be fair, but also seems solvable...)
- IncRnd 9y ago
  I already mentioned the types of things that you didn't specify. You didn't specify any architecture, components, interactions, interfaces, etc. You didn't specify any protection mechanisms or state what threats would be protected against. I'm not going to do your work for you. You might find people willing to work with you, but the odds are slim until you have a unique idea or something more than a single sentence. Literally thousands of people have discussed UUIDs, including the two links that I sent to you.
  - dilap 9y ago
    > I'm not going to do your work for you. It's a high-level idea, dude. You made one specific critique, which I refuted, and now you're criticizing the idea as uncriticizable because it doesn't have enough of the details specified. Thanks for playing, I guess.