Pika

So the API does disclose who upvotes and downvotes, however since the major front ends themselves don't show to everyday users, it's walled off to finding a frontend that is able to view them and to mod/admins of the instance.

Currently it takes someone to be somewhat savvy to be able to do that, this proposal is making everything public period, which would remove that wall

I partially agree with you, the voting system as a whole should be removed in my opinion or upvotes publicized but down vote should not. It's far too easy for down vote which is used commonly as in off topic or disagree to be taken the wrong way and cause targeted harassment. Making the whole thing public as a whole is just going to make dissants refuse to give their opinion strengthening echo chamber issues

I don't even run with votes enabled(I can vote but can't see scores) on my clients, but like yeah this will definitely make me second guess any type of interaction with voting for both directions because I don't want to become a target for harassment. It defeats the purpose in my opinion of having the system in the first place if someone can't truthfully vote the way they want.

This is a lot of work for something that shouldn't be problem with a voting system in the first place, like there is no point in voting if it's not anonymous. I can see the reason that mods and admins should have to have it but it defeats the purpose of voting in the first place if it's not anonymous, personally speaking if one should be fully open, up votes should be not Anonymous but down votes which are going to be the target of harassment should be anonymized

personally speaking, I think they were short-sighted not requiring an account to have made a purchase to use the free game program. Not like a dedicated subscription but like as a "you must have bought a game through is" type of deal like how steam manages the community system. A huge part of their misinvestment are people who are only there /for/ the free games. It wouldn't be a tall barrier if they had put it behind a "must make a 5 or 10$ purchase a year off the store" type of restriction, and it would save tremendously on how many free copies that get redeemed

I know people that like flipping keys and games off gray markets, and they've told me themselves they have three or four epic accounts and whenever a game goes live they just run a script on their computer that Auto redeems the game on all four of the accounts, that would more or less stop that from happening because they're not going to get much advertisement wise out of that type of crowd anyway.

That being said I'm guilty as charged as well, I think satisfactory was the last game I actually bought off of the Epic store and that was strictly because that was the only platform I could get it on

Agreed, instead of paying for some of it, enforce a strict 3% interest rate (with the remaining amount being paid for by the gov), this prevents the base cost of the home being raised by the amount of the subsidy

can't wait for all homes to go up 25k in response. Without purchase control this is useless

meanwhile actual content creators are getting demonitized for happy wheel level gore (small red particles that come out when a stick man's limbs come off)

so dumb.

really re-enforcing the fact that I will never buy a COD game again. It's not like they used to be and it looks like it's intentional at this point.

I'm going one step further, it's not just Google app services that is the problem. What they're catching fire for currently is the Google Integrity api, as Google is refusing to whitelist third-party ROMs onto the API which means that secure apps such as banking apps will use that API are not able to be run on third party custom roms. Their argument is since they can't validate the security of the ROMs they refuse to integrate them, however there are a few projects including graphene OS that has done everything that they can to keep it a secure minimalistic environment but because it's not Google they won't whitelist it. It's definitly anti-competitive.

I don't get the purpose of this, the page isn't super clear unless I missed it. plus it wants card details?

Yeah but specifically they usually would have been parked in a designated parking area due to the fact that they would need to charge in between uses as well so it's unlikely that those Vehicles would be parked on the sidewalk like standard consumer vehicles are