AZ seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.
View attachment 2607102
View attachment 2607103
They had to delete the data to make room for the next election (which apparently was right after the 2020 one).
Okay, let's work this out. Let's say a user's choice can be represented by one
UUID, which is basically just a really large number. UUIDs are 128 bits, or 16 bytes, large.
Now let's say that each Arizona state voter had to make 30 choices on their ballots. So choosing a President, Vice President, congressassholes, state-level polishitians, yes or no choices on ballot measures, etc. Heck, let's be generous and bump that up to 50. So a user's entire voting record is 50 x 16 = 800 bytes large. Let's double it to account for database overhead and, I don't know, maybe the creators of these things are idiots that can't make efficient database schemas - we're talking about "government work" after all. So 1600 bytes per voter.
Now how many voters are going to use a voting machine? I'm not sure, so let's do a worst-case scenario to make a dumb guess. Let's say the polling place is open for 18 hours and it's packed full of voters the whole time, but each voter is very efficient and can make all their choices in three minutes. So that's 20 voters an hour, or 360 people for the whole day.
1600 bytes times 360 people is 576,400 bytes, or (by disk space reckoning) about 576 kilobytes. (A 3.5-inch "hard" floppy disk can fit about 1,440 kilobytes of data at its highest common density format, so two elections' worth of voting machine data could easily fit in your pocket even if you limited yourself to 1986's storage media.) If the voting machine only had a 1GB disk and half of it was taken up by the operating system and other software (even though these things wouldn't need a full-sized operating system by any means), they could still store enough data for over 860 elections.
Even if my calculations are off by two orders of magnitude… that's still 8 elections.
Yeah, fuck off with the "we had to clear off space" argument, asshole.
That is a very uncharitable take. You might want to take a break.
The reporter was more likely attempting to paper over the people screaming "fuck" during her live segment.
It would have been better for her to just ignore it, or to stop recording the interview and try to do it again in a quieter place. Instead she just flagrantly denied reality and apparently expected everyone to believe her. It was the worst option. And yes, her bad choice was probably a result of her panic, but that doesn't make it less ridiculous.
(edited a few times because I suck at math apparently)