Wolfgang622 wrote:I haven't coded for some time, and when I did it was in BASIC 2.0 on a Commodore 64, and I feel reasonably confident that I could, if I pulled an all-nighter, create an app that required a username and password, allowed the end user to input three numbers, collect all those numbers from all the different registered users, and keep a running tally of the numbers in columns 1,2, and 3.

I mean come the fuck on.

And this is why you haven't coded in 30 years. If it was that easy most of us "coders" wouldn't be employed.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:At least this should put to rest the Biden is most electable nonsense. He's as electable as Jeb Bush.

Making conclusions about a candidate's general election strength or weakness based off of their performance in a contest that is wildly unrepresentative of the general electorate is a big leap.

I hate the expectations game, as finishing 4th is finishing 4th. But if you have the resources and name recognition of Biden, and a big part of your appeal is that you are "electable" then you need to win elections.

Of course, my conclusions are not just based on one weird night in Iowa. Biden has a long and distinguished history of not winning Presidential elections.

That doesn't seem like a fair criticism, let alone for a former VP.

I'm not sure why it isn't fair. If we look at VPs and their success in Presidential elections since 1960, we get 2-2 (Mondale and Gore were losers, Nixon and Bush were winners. It may or may not be relevant that the two losers were Democrats.)

Maybe this is better: Electable candidates win elections. There is no evidence that Joe Biden is electable.

If Biden is far from my preferred candidate (though to be honest I think I might prefer him to Bernie among the front runners) I'm going to need actual evidence to support him on the basis of "electability".

He's 0 for 2 going on 0 for 3

momadance wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I haven't coded for some time, and when I did it was in BASIC 2.0 on a Commodore 64, and I feel reasonably confident that I could, if I pulled an all-nighter, create an app that required a username and password, allowed the end user to input three numbers, collect all those numbers from all the different registered users, and keep a running tally of the numbers in columns 1,2, and 3.

I mean come the fuck on.

And this is why you haven't coded in 30 years. If it was that easy most of us "coders" wouldn't be employed.

so do you think they just didn't test it with that many users? I could see the app being overwhelmed. I set up a biology survey of a forest and we used an existing app program to compile the data and it crashed. The data just didn't make it into the spreadsheet. The guy who ran the website said it may have had something to do with the numbers of people using it (about 400).

But I really don't know anything about this stuff beyond my limited experience. I'm just surprised they didn't test it better.

Monkeyboy wrote:

momadance wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I haven't coded for some time, and when I did it was in BASIC 2.0 on a Commodore 64, and I feel reasonably confident that I could, if I pulled an all-nighter, create an app that required a username and password, allowed the end user to input three numbers, collect all those numbers from all the different registered users, and keep a running tally of the numbers in columns 1,2, and 3.

I mean come the fuck on.

And this is why you haven't coded in 30 years. If it was that easy most of us "coders" wouldn't be employed.

so do you think they just didn't test it with that many users? I could see the app being overwhelmed. I set up a biology survey of a forest and we used an existing app program to compile the data and it crashed. The data just didn't make it into the spreadsheet. The guy who ran the website said it may have had something to do with the numbers of people using it (about 400).

But I really don't know anything about this stuff beyond my limited experience. I'm just surprised they didn't test it better.

I wasn't responding to that. I was responding to the fact that some people with no experience think they could build something this big overnight. I have no idea what Shadow Inc's regressions testing plans were so it's pretty hard to comment on something we don't know a thing about.

Homeland Security offered to test it but their offer was declined so they must have thought they did plenty of testing.

Was it the app itself or the users of the app? It seems to me that they could easily have been widespread problems with users not understanding which numbers were to get entered where.

TenuredVulture wrote:Was it the app itself or the users of the app? It seems to me that they could easily have been widespread problems with users not understanding which numbers were to get entered where.

The people using the GOP app went through a bunch of training last week and said it was pretty straight forward but they were using something different.

TenuredVulture wrote:Was it the app itself or the users of the app? It seems to me that they could easily have been widespread problems with users not understanding which numbers were to get entered where.

It's been reported there was a coding problem with the app, but some users couldn't download it but maybe they were just boomers. I think the main issue is a coding issue not user error.

heyeaglefn wrote:Homeland Security offered to test it but their offer was declined so they must have thought they did plenty of testing.

Yeah which is doesn't give Shadow Inc any benefit of the doubt, though DHS wanted to test it for security reasons.

heyeaglefn wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Was it the app itself or the users of the app? It seems to me that they could easily have been widespread problems with users not understanding which numbers were to get entered where.

It's been reported there was a coding problem with the app, but some users couldn't download it but maybe they were just boomers. I think the main issue is a coding issue not user error.

It's definitely an issue with the app, not the users. Probably screwed up the cloud integration.

CalvinBall wrote:

He's such an asshole.

I just don't understand if the app is broken at this point why they couldn't have just spoke with every person on the phone to get the numbers, I would assume you work through the night to get this done.

They will be releasing about 50 percent of the results at 4 pm today. Whatever happened, it must be an absolute mess. Unfortunate.

CalvinBall wrote:They will be releasing about 50 percent of the results at 4 pm today. Whatever happened, it must be an absolute mess. Unfortunate.

Unless they aren't sure they're ever going to get final results, releasing partial data at this point seems monumentally stupid.

If Pete's narrowly ahead and Bernie ends up narrowly winning, they'll get blowback. If the opposite happens, they'll get blowback.

It seems to me that when deciding to deploy a new technology, you need ask two questions:

1. What problem does this technology solve?
2. What do we do if the technology fails?

Near as I can figure no one bothered with either of those.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:They will be releasing about 50 percent of the results at 4 pm today. Whatever happened, it must be an absolute mess. Unfortunate.

Unless they aren't sure they're ever going to get final results, releasing partial data at this point seems monumentally stupid.

If Pete's narrowly ahead and Bernie ends up narrowly winning, they'll get blowback. If the opposite happens, they'll get blowback.

John King on CNN saying Biden is planning on filing an injunction to stop a partial release.

Looking at this makes it a lot easier to explain how Iowa Dems lose to people like Joni Ernst and Steve King.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:They will be releasing about 50 percent of the results at 4 pm today. Whatever happened, it must be an absolute mess. Unfortunate.

Unless they aren't sure they're ever going to get final results, releasing partial data at this point seems monumentally stupid.

If Pete's narrowly ahead and Bernie ends up narrowly winning, they'll get blowback. If the opposite happens, they'll get blowback.

Agree with this. I get it if it comes out over the course of a few hours last night but woof.

Hopefully whoever we randomly nominate at the contested convention is good!