Kev blocked me, but I'm surprised he's still at it. Another "Pro-Life" advocate who is okay with millions of kids dying because they funded a $12K play in Dublin that promoted gender awareness. We never have to listen to these people ever again.
Bell Labs Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Lead Econometrician, Corporate Strategy, Lucent That's my kid getting the Bronze at the World University Games. She's a beautiful enigma I keep a VanLife Blog here: https://dbmain.substack.com/
155 followers 276 following 959 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Kev blocked me, but I'm surprised he's still at it. Another "Pro-Life" advocate who is okay with millions of kids dying because they funded a $12K play in Dublin that promoted gender awareness. We never have to listen to these people ever again.
This is like the 5th time I'm saying it: The systems can be hacked, and it's why we have layers of audits and technological safeguards to detect it when it happens. You haven't bothered yourself to learn what they are, and thus can't say how they were circumvented.
"Do your own research" Sigh. It's so depressing when our side has developed MAGA-brain.
Yes, they have been recounted and compared to published results. At this point, doesn't it seem obvious that you don't really know anything about the systems and voting procedures, and that would be a good step before propagating conspiracy claims?
You want states to take extraordinary and extra-legal means to satisfy your hunch. Without spending a few minutes to learn about the procedures that would detect the fraud you're so sure happened.
I don't know why anyone would fight so hard, in the face of reality, to not educate themselves on the matter they are so passionate about.
There's a report that has evidence of penetration of electronic tabulators? Link please
You seem to be unaware that about 96% of the 2024 votes were on paper ballots.
It WAS recounted. Via the Risk Limiting Audits. PA. GA. AZ. OH.
Once again, we're not "pretending it can't happen". I'll say it again: It can. It's why we have layers of audits and technological schemes to detect it. When confronted with the challenge of "how did it go undetected?" the conspiracy theories expand to cover it.
A) They got into registration systems, not election systems. In all the years you've been posting it, have you read the report? B) And yes, they can be hacked. It's why we have layers of audits and technology to detect it. Are you familiar with Risk Limiting Audits? That's literally a recount.
Also, respectfully, you folks seem like you think you're the first to think that machines can be hacked. You're not. There are up to 4 legislatively-mandated audits that are performed. Each machine is required to perform cryptographical verification of the software image upon boot.
Respectfully, I say it's you that's fighting the wrong battle. If we pretend that Harris actually won, we can convince ourselves there is no corrective action to be taken on policy, messaging, etc.
The tripp lite stuff is nonsense. Thiswillhold lied about what Tripp Lite devices are used within the ES&S configuration. Furthermore, they are OPTIONAL devices. Would you predicate a huge election fraud scheme on OPTIONAL devices? thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/no-starlin...
Your numbers need updating. Biden, 2020: 81,284,666 votes Harris, 2024: 75,017,613 votes And there's enough post-election analyses based on polling to show where the Biden voters went: Rogan-inspired young men, and Latino men.
That substacker doesn't know what she's looking at. They have no election or computing background, and she misinterpreted the ECA certification report. Ironically, without the change, the system's technological methods to DETECT hacking wouldn't have worked.
By using the same logic, we see that Kamala tried to steal Oklahoma. TEN PRECINCTS WHERE TRUMP DIDN'T GET ANY VOTES!!11!! results.okelections.gov/OKER/?elecDa...
And here: thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/no-starlin...
Starlink nonsense here: thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/no-starlin...
Please do NOT retweet. Thiswillhold is a grifter. He's already been called out by Snopes. I dissemble the nonsense about the machines being change here. thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/you-may-ha...
My constant question to ETA is: If this fraud happened, how did it avoid detection during the several layers of audits and technological methods designed to detect fraud? There WAS a manual recount of a statistically significant number of ballots.
The only way they are processed differently is the signature verification on the ballot envelope. All ballots are electronically tabulated. Maybe it's semantics. What did you mean. (PS: Trump says a lot of things. He's a troll. As is Musk. When it came to DOGE, he left this data base open.)
It's not Ballot Stuffing; it's the law of large numbers, the central tenet of statistics. This guy explains it beautifully, and exposes the mistakes ETA is making. bsky.app/profile/trev...
Holy shit, I never caught that. These people really know nothing.
Probably Kristi Noem tossing out a small animal she just shot.
This claim is garbage. Please don't amplify these grifters. thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/you-may-ha...
Here's the company "that disappeared". provandv.com
What's stopping you to name one now? Please proceed.
Are you, a Free-Market Conservative, advocating for regulation? (This also demonstrates why you don't have a clue about what's causing higher housing costs)
With a gun to your head you wouldn't be able to identify even one of these "slush funds". MAGA: The most gullible people on the planet.
They found absolutely no fraud in USAID. I can't believe we found the last mook that believes the ketamine addict found anything. And about those "ridiculous rent prices". What's the matter? You don't like the free market all of a sudden?
You're ridiculous. An absolute Fuckwit. We're not making a choice between feeding African refugees and housing the homeless. Are we making a choice between building F-35s and providing shelter? Oh, and today, without a doubt, food will pass your lips thanks to an undocumented worker.
We used to post etymologies. We still do, but we used to, too.
The only thing I do wish they'd do differently is respond in depth to challenges about "how did this go undetected?" NC, for instance, has a very robust Risk Limiting Audit. If there was vote manipulation as they're implying, how did it go undetected?
ETA is to be commended for their openness. I had questions on their PA data, and they put me in touch with the person who assembled it and we have gone back and forth so many times. The discussion has now even wandered into other areas.
Yes, the state has another level of certification. But it's mainly to assess interoperability with NC's voting infrastructure and not, as you're implying, to test security of the system. s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov...
The EAC certified EVS 5.2.4.0. www.eac.gov/sites/defaul...
This paired with the disparity of voter turnout between blacks and whites explains why, when turnout increases, so does the Trump share of the vote.https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article297937223.html
Red Flag? Or just rural/urban and racial voting patterns? On the left is the voting results by precinct in Forsythe County. On the right is the black population density. Links: er.ncsbe.gov/contest_deta... data.census.gov/map/050XX00U...
Isn't this just a repackaging of your Clark County analysis that was eloquently critiqued here? sullivan.zip/clark-county...
These aren't "mirrors". One has a distinct tail (or shoulder). The other one is just multi-modal, which is expected in precinct level voting patterns.
To be as gracious as possible to the original blogger (dissentinbloom), let's say they didn't have any software/computing experience, and didn't know what they were looking at. But I know that ETA does. It's why I am *shocked* you are so carelessly repeating this nonsense.
Since the config file is going to be different in each installation (one county may not have a full ES&S suite, one county may use different brands of printers), the config file CANNOT be included in the Trusted Build Verification process. If it is, the check will fail, and the machines won't boot.
When the systems are booted up in the field, the system creates a cryptographic hash key. Let's call this "Hashcode-Field". If Hashcode-Field =/= Hashcode-EAC, we know that the software in the field is different from what was certified in the EAC process. We know the software has been altered.
When the systems are certified via the EAC process, a cryptographic hash key is created; it's a unique identifier created by scanning the software on the disk. Let's call this "Hashcode-EAC"
Here's a diagram from a substack post that's still in draft. It explains the Trusted Build Verification. Ironically, this verification is the technological safeguard to detect if the machine's software has been hacked.
For those of you still with me, the change WAS small. It removed a file from the Trusted Build Verification process that's run at installation, every time the systems are booted, and upon demand. Why? Because it was a config file that will differ at each precinct.
Does that sound like "Full Certification Testing" wasn't done? What more would you have wanted to be done? And here's where we get to the blogger deliberately bending the truth. They changed "No Additional Testing Required" to "No Testing Required"
The Source Code was reviewed. A system functional test was done. They simulated a “Test Election” to determine if the system was producing accurate results. It did. And more pertinent to the engineering change, a "Trusted Build" verification was done.
But since I'm not compelled to draw people to my substack, I will summarize it here. The blogger read this Pro V&V/EAC testing report and concluded the system was certified without any testing. www.eac.gov/sites/defaul...
I am dismayed that you are repeating this claim. It's nonsense created by a blogger who doesn't know what they are looking at. I address it fully here. thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/you-may-ha...
Yes, they can be hacked. It's why we have up to 4 legislatively mandated audits (it varies by state) designed to detect it. Can you name them?
They use paper ballots that are tabulated by electronic machines by Dominion, ES&S, and Clear Ballot. Nationwide, ~95% of votes are on paper ballot. verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mo...
Georgia: 5% recount, and a deviation of 8 votes out of nearly 750,000 recounted. sos.ga.gov/news/georgia...
Wisconsin recounted ~10% of their ballots and found no machine miscounts, deliberate or otherwise. www.thecentersquare.com/wisconsin/ar...
There's more, but that's enough. So, again, I ask: If the NC votes were altered, how did it go undetected during NC's RLAs (which the report found adequate), and *how* were they altered given that the Trusted Build verification technology would have detected any machine hacking?
Section 14.3.1 requires that upon boot, a cryptographic hashsum check on the software image is compared to the hash from the EAC certification process. If the software has been hacked, the process will fail, and the machine won't boot. Link to VVSG 2.0 requirements. www.eac.gov/sites/defaul...
The NC election systems used in 2024 were required to comply with the latest version of the Election Assistance Commission "Voluntary Voting System Guidelines" (VVSG) at the time. That was VVSG 2.0 Link to NC requirements s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov...
Another glaring omission is that she asserts that the only method currently undertaken to detect machine hacking is the Logic & Accuracy tests. What's weird is that the report does not once mention the cryptographic "trusted build" process in the VVSG requirements.
Their only issue with the RLA is that it will contain ballots recorded via a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) "and cannot be considered trustworthy audit records." Well, that's silly. Because there's an audit that the ballot has accurately reflected voter intent: By the voter.
There are a number of things wrong with that report, so I'll try to minimize my comments to a) North Carolina, and b) audits. First of all, the report is generally favorable about NC's RLAs.
I had some questions about that report. I decided to ask Ms. Greenhalgh directly. Her answer? She blocked me. Here's the link to my questions. I'd be interested in your opinion about whether I crossed a line. web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/dbma...
There was an audit, Jimmy. Just like after every election. ETA knows about it. The election wasn't stolen. It does us no good to keep pretending it was. s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov...
We never did finish the conversation but, again, NC has a robust Risk Limiting Audit. How did this "manipulation" evade detection? (As well as the other technological methods to detect/prevent machine tampering?) bsky.app/profile/dbma...
Please don't amplify this grifter. He's been lying about the ES&S systems for months. Snopes even called out his shit. www.snopes.com/news/2025/08...
please stop amplifying this grifter. His *first* whistleblower worked for NGAs, not the NSA. www.snopes.com/news/2025/08...
There wasn't even a *first* whistleblower. www.snopes.com/news/2025/08...
Please stop amplifying thiswillhold. He's just making shit up at this point. www.snopes.com/news/2025/08...
I wonder about these "computer scientists". Source code isn't stored on the machines. It's binary executable. Totally worthless to hackers.
I am basing my argument around fact. ETA's "machine flipping" theory is just a failure to understand the central tenet of statistics: The Law of Large Numbers. They can't explain why it wasn't detected by the legislatively-mandated audits, or the technological safeguards.
There's a conspiracy on top of the conspiracy, huh? Where does it end?
I am very wary of people claiming to have evidence of election fraud, and then not admit they were wrong. Distrust in elections is the biggest factor in voter turnout suppression. It's actually counterproductive.
This is the best presentation of why that's nonsense. Inside the blog, the guy has some interactive tool to show why, and show why ETA is being deliberately misleading. bsky.app/profile/trev...
Yes, it's inaccurate. The statistics are flawed. When challenged on using the wrong method, he says, "But it's easier to understand". And the "just enough to not trigger a recount" is also BS.
They are literally dusting off the ItalyGate conspiracy from 2020. I fought election disinformation for 4 years and now my side is doing it. My argument is that if there was election fraud, how did it go undetected by the legislatively-mandated audits and technological methods meant to detect it?
The best explanation is that he's an attention whore and regularly pleads for substack subscriptions. I have several posts up mocking his other claims. He just makes shit up. thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/no-starlin...
The tripp lite, starlink, palantir claims are fabricated nonsense created by a grifter. Please don't amplify him. thepianosaletters.substack.com/p/no-starlin...
"thiswillhold" lied about his *first* NSA whistleblower. This dude lies about everything. He's a grifter. Please stop amplifying him. www.snopes.com/news/2025/08...
Maybe the starbucks app explains your pace
"Everyone should use my niche spotty service!!1!!"
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a darth NOW"
Judge: The plaintiff is before the court with a plea for a full manual recount. Such a manual recount has no statutory basis. On what grounds do you ask the court to grant such an extraordinary order? Brian Prend: I have some feelz, Your Honor. Really really strong feelz.
Here you say you're not interested in learning about the audits that do everything you ask. If you're not willing to summon the intellectual curiosity, or do the work, don't expect the state to cater to your laziness and stupidity. bsky.app/profile/bria...
c) Floating debunked conspiracy theories undermines people's faith in the system, and it has been demonstrated that it reduces voter turnout. You are contributing to that. These aren't "opinions"; they're facts. The only one flouting opinions here is *you*.
No, that's not the only reason. It's *a* reason. Other reasons are: a) The machine tabulations have already been audited and nothing was found. That you don't understand their efficacy is your problem. b) It sets a bad legal precedent. I didn't like it in 2020, and I don't like it now.
Weird. How many times now were you invited to share any of this "evidence"? And you just can't seem to do it.
He has kept among us in times of peace Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution & unacknowledged by our laws.
Here's your chance to itemize the evidence. If it takes you multiple posts to do it, go ahead. Note: "I didn't want Trump to be elected" isn't evidence. Nor is "I am too lazy to learn about everything that's meant to detect fraud" evidence, either.
You won't stop doing what? Amplifying incoherent conspiracy theories? If you want to continue sounding exactly like MAGA Morons from 2020, fire away.
You're back to having evidence. You keep flip-flopping between "I have evidence" and "We need to investigate to find evidence". bsky.app/profile/bria...
You, moments ago: I have evidence. You, now: We need to investigate to get the evidence. bsky.app/profile/bria...
You do not have evidence. Seriously. None whatsoever.
You're talking about motivation. But, again, you don't have a whit of evidence. Instead, you have a strong desire to *believe*. And we know your kind: You STILL won't be satisfied even IF every ballot is reviewed.
I actually believe Mebane is actually saying that the application of his model on PA revealed "false positives". It's why he drew a parallel with the German parliamentary election. But no one amplifying the "250K fraudulent votes" ever gets to this sentence.
You don't want to understand the audits, and you don't want to understand the math behind an RLA. And you expect the taxpayers of the state to subsidize your lack of intellectual curiosity. That's what I understand.
Two forms of Risk Limiting Audits were already performed in PA. The comparison has already taken place. Why should states and counties spend precious monetary resources to placate people who can't be bothered to learn about the effectiveness of the procedures already in place?
I WAS concerned about the accuracy of the data. Because of the footnote I saw in Mebane's paper. If there were 32 obvious mistakes (more votes than registered voters) how many more non-obvious ones were there? Especially since Mebane's model is sensitive to turnout data.