This comment was clearly made by a bot that didn't read the article nor understands it's not US related.
The article has little statements sprinkled throughout that are easily used to undermine trust in an election. Sometimes the articles do not need to promote the idea themselves, but the larger manipulation machine does better when they can point to more "evidence" of "hackable" machines.
At the same time, I do not disagree with the absurd waste. This is why I shared a link to an interesting project that can help with this. Paper only voting, with human tallies, is far more expensive than machine tallying and also more prone to error.
US state actors are insidious, nothing would surprise me
Of course!? This election was fully digital, no paper ballots, you'd enter and press a button and you preference would be registered. For what it's worth, the entire operation could've been completely faked. There was no transparency at all in the process.
The article would've been completely useless if this machine was a ballot marking device and you could check back that the ballot was correctly marked, but except for a "Thank you for voting" dialog, here there was no proof at all that your vote was registered and counted.
From what I have seen, both extremes (fully digital / fully paper) are both unworkable. Fully digital will never be trusted, fully paper is too expensive and error prone (human labor).