This actually sounds like an interesting app. But I downvoted your submission, because it is worded like an advertisement. Ads are not appropriate for Slashdot articles; that's called "spam". Please submit again as a description of this kind of technology, with your app just mentioned as an example. Be sure to mention other similar or related technology. One example is Beeminder, which charges you money instead of publicly shaming you if you don't make good on your promise. Extra points if you are honest and mention one or more direct competitors - it will help you, not hurt you, if yours really is the best.

The paper itself mentions only the ion hypothesis; the article linked by OP attributes the other hypothesis to "Keith Forward, a chemical engineer at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona". The point is that the study makes no claim about the validity of any hypothesis. It only rejects the previously widely accepted one. So the title of the article is quite fair; it's not "clickbait".

No, that's just one of two alternative hypotheses mentioned at the end of the article. The second is transfer of the zirconium itself between the particles. There could be other ideas. The point of this study is only to eliminate the widely assumed electron-transfer hypothesis, not to establish any alternative. So the title is quite accurate.

OK, it's interesting. But please add a link to the report itself. Don't just link to an article about the report and paste text from it.

Here's the story. It was KPHO in Phoenix, Arizona. They displayed a banner at the bottom of the screen announcing the exact percentages by which Obama defeated Romney with 99% of results in - more than two weeks before the election.

The station claims it was a mistaken display of a test graphic. Could be that's what happened in Azerbaijan, too, if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do we?

As Bruce Shneier says - Don't trust electronic voting. Use paper.

No, even the mathematicians wouldn't trust it. See Bruce Schneier's 2006 essay that explains why.

Use paper ballots. Period.

However, crypto can still add value - it can go a long way towards preventing fraud and errors even in a paper ballot election. Scantegrity is an open-source system, invented by Rivest (the "R" in RSA), Chaum, and other researchers, that helps secure a paper ballot election by supplying each voter with a simple verification code that can be written down. The codes in no way compromise the anonymity of the voters, and cannot be used to determine what vote was cast. But they can be used by individual voters to verify that their votes have been counted correctly, and by election officials to verify that ballots have not been tampered with and that the results have been tallied correctly. The overhead cost of the system is low.

Scantegrity has been used successfully in two real elections - municipal elections in the Takoma Park, Maryland in the U.S. But so far it doesn't seem to be catching on very much. I guess it doesn't quite suit the needs of the big money electronic voting industry.