On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Daniel Gruno <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2015-04-03 00:13, Greg Stein wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Gruno <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> - Set the random seed to actually be random now. Setting it to 0 is just >>> bad juju and can be reverse engineered to place candidates in such a way >>> that a tie will always favor candidate X. >>> >> I disagree with this change. This now means you/me could run the report >> and >> get different results. That is even worse than the extreme likelihood >> somebody could rig the vote. > > See r1671014 as a compromise - that way the seed stays the same no matter > how many times you tally, but cannot be determined beforehand.
+1 > With regards, > Daniel. - Sam Ruby >> You could simply look at the result as: the algorithm chose it that way. >> It >> happens to use a pseudorandom sequence to make the choice. That decision >> is >> *part* of how the algorithm operates, rather than using a true random >> number. >> >>> ... >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> >
