It sounds like everyone but mods should be able to see voters. But of course they will use straw accounts. What if only votes on your own post/comment were revealed to you? Like some pointed out, they are already not anonymous to anyone who wants to try hard enough to get the data because of federation. So the question is who do we want to be able to see that data easily? It’s a GUI modification in any case. Who are we making the gui modification for?
Then I’m super for it. Might as well make what is available to a few try hards available to all easily.
For this user base it is the right answer. So many petty downvoters. On my site I’m considering a rule that would make it so you can’t be the vote that casts a comment into the negative without giving a reason, and then that reason would be turned into a comment. If something is worth downvoting then it is worth explaining why someone is wrong. If you can’t do that maybe you shouldn’t downvote. I don’t think you should have to do that every time. But if a comment is going to go negative someone should step up to the plate and bother to articulate. That way a comment can’t get hidden away from the public just because a petty mob that can’t even present an argument sees it as convenient if certain information disappears.
So in that case the downvoter who crossed it into the negative would not be anonymous.
You have infinitely other options. search.brave.com, yandex, bing. And probably a lot of cool ones I don’t know about.
All of them search more accurately your directly requested phrase instead of a blurry interpretation of your sentiment.
Yes. Arch is not actually hard. It’s just a meme.
Because debian is a vanilla distro that does as little as possible, so it isn’t extra work to use it. Do you know what other distro tries to be as vanilla as possible. Arch. So if you just use the install wizard Debian and Arch are equal difficulty. AKA the easiest. Don’t buy the Ubuntu marketing hype. Just because someone labels themselves the easiest doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because another distro is labeled hard doesn’t mean it’s true.
Arch is not hard… at all. Everyone says it is hard but no one can cite why. There is always the option of using a traditional linux installer wizard and it installs just as easy as any other distro. Then the only difference is you have a different command for your package manager. It runs the same software. I’m tired of hearing that there are meaningful differences between these distros when the only major difference is “command install packagename” vs “different_command install packagename”. Woah there. I think this is going to be too complicated for new users.
The only other major difference is arch ships the configs that the developers recommend as a default while ubuntu tries to be as aggressive with some of the software as they can be. My experience is sometimes this breaks thing (at least did back in the day) depending on updates and your hardware. This leaves you trouble shooting the most low level stuff. I’ve had to do more high level tech support for myself every year I’ve run Ubuntu than I have in 6 years of running Arch.
Maybe Arch users shout Arch because we know it’s the easiest distro we’ve used and we want to save new users the headache that comes from accepting the BS marketing on Ubuntu as real. The more a distro tries to accomplish the more they are going to fail the more it is you who will hold the bag for fixing it. So the distro that does the least is actually the easiest one. If you pick manjaro or artix you get the install wizard and its as easy to install as Ubuntu but with less broken stuff once it is running.
Next time something breaks in your ubuntu just know that if you were running arch it would have never happened.
In Christian Satanism is Jesus evil?
This is why pirating is justified. If you want your shows to last forever, torrent them, and keep them seeded.