How do we know this is real? Most online form providers will host all forms on their own domain, so it could just be a great way to get some data harvesting going on the .microsoft gTLD.
Yeah, I spent more time than I cared to admit fiddling with DEVICE(HIGH) lines, tweaking FILES= and BUFFERS=, running MEMMAKER.EXE over and over as if that would do something, but it was never the real thing. The real thing is making the machine do something I wanted instead of what the manufacturer wanted. For a kid of this generation, I'd look for games with reasonable modding APIs, perhaps something like Lua, and ideally something where playing multiplayer lets him show his creations off to his friends.
From there, look to packages like LÖVE which still use Lua but give full control over the whole game, and help him explore and wrangle the things he needs to understand to make his programming real. And if the lower levels interest him, help him dig deeper. But I think modding and scripting is probably the best place to start.
And the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security definitely gave the literal thousands of submissions due consultation before recommending the original, un-split bill pass.
Nobody. Nobody at all could have seen it. Microsoft is cool now, haven't you seen VSCode? They do Open Source, they run Linux, they've joined the fold, the tiger shed its stripes.
> "Postal voting on demand, however many safeguards you build into it, is wide open to fraud… on a scale that will make election rigging a possibility and indeed in some areas a probability."
> "Now I know that there is a very strong political desire to keep the present system. What I'm saying is that if you keep the present system, then however many safeguards you create, fraud and serious fraud is inevitably going to continue because that is built into the system."
There are some really clever systems that let you prove that you voted without leaking how you voted.
Unfortunately, explaining them to Joe Q. Public in such a way that he's going to trust your election is a very tough sell, whereas counting paper is a much easier process to explain.
And that's before you begin worrying that the developer of your whizz-bang mathematically-provable voting system is a) going to win the bid to build it for the government, b) implements it correctly, and c) isn't subverted while doing so.