Security audits and supervisors from all parties in all steps for starters.
The voting machine prints a total for that machine at the same time that the votes are transferred to the central counting, this process is public, the supervisor from each party get a copy of the total, and one copy is publicly affixed at the voting place, so parallel aggregating from the partial counts is possible (and has been done by sampling).
Internal counting on the voting machine is somewhat validated by picking random voting machines out of the voting places and conducting a parallel voting, publicly broadcasted, on which known amount of votes for each candidate are input and the result from the machine is compared to the expected. Only thing missing that I can think of is actually doing this parallel voting on the same time and place the voting was expected to take place.
It is worth noting that some “nations with fewer scientific resources” provide their students and researchers broad access to scientific papers through their public universities and research institutions. That part of the article seems to be affirming the autor’s prejudice without a shred of confirmation
Really surprising considering that Oracle is the standard for serious enterprise databases.
Not really surprising when you consider Oracle's other bug ridden offerings (probably not as thoroughly tested).
Makes me fear for Oracle 18c.