Against
This information is already public. Something like kbin or mbin which already shows votes could theoretically be used to show them for any federated instances anyway. It's pointless trying to obscure this information as it's not actually protected in a technical manor. If you didn't want this information public you chose the wrong platform.
This info is already public. All you have to do is go on kbin or mbin.
Except that's not how any of this works. Votes are public via the ActivityPub protocol, which is why this tool is possible in the first place. Kbin ane Mbin make votes public, so all you need to do to see this is use one of those instances federated with dbzero. This kind of comment is just being ignorant of the technology and mechanics in place. If you wanted that kind of privacy you shouldn't be on this platform. You should probably not be on a public forum with actual usernames. Maybe try 4chan?
As someone pointed out this is already public information for anyone using kbin and mbin. Blocking tools like this doesn't really change that, or even make it harder to see. People are saying without it you would need to make your own instance to see who voted, but given kbin and mbin exists this is probably false and misleading.
Votes being public is an inherent part of the protocol and the software. There isn't much that can be done without redesigning both of those things. Even then it would probably be a case of votes per instance, not fully anonymous voting. Doing that could potentially create moderation problems as well.
I can read fine. You can't write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can't even quote properly. Come on now.
You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don't even live in. It's daft. Most people on this site either wouldn't have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn't absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn't have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it's mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don't want nuclear, even though it's the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn't have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn't even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.
You can't say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It's a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren't even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.
I don't use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don't know who you are quoting.
The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don't know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don't generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.
We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It's not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It's not all about the USA. Stop pretending it's the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.
Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.
This kind of talk isn't really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.
There wasn't a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn't exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven't been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.
Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it's just changing far faster than it would naturally. It's the speed that's the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It's a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.
You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.
Edit: There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It's called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that.
We aren't putting it off. Already many countries are deploying renewable energy like it's going out of fashion, and have been for years. China, France, the UK, Spain, and India all have significant parts of their energy coming from renewables and nuclear, or are building more as we speak. Here in England our largest source of power is wind. People are already doing stuff about it, just not fast enough or universally enough. Technology for renewables and energy saving has gotten progressively better over the past several decades. Even fossil fuel technologies like cars and natural gas plants have gotten markedly more efficient meaning they produce less CO2 than they did previously, while also emitting lower levels of other pollutants too. It's even possible now to power planes with biofuels.
What made you think I blame women?
IP over ham radio is a thing, so yes. Wouldn't be very fast mind you.
I am not talking about Google but rather Overleaf and GitHub. Though there is university data kept on Google Drive including students marks.
Man hackers would love you. Memory vulnerabilities are still one of if not the main cause of vulnerabilities in unsafe languages. Yes this even applies to large projects ran by experienced and skilled people like the Linux kernel. Stop thinking your the exception, because I guarantee you aren't but even if you were you can't read all of the code in the world in your lifetime. Nor can you write all the code in the world.