On giving guesses: you could just give the strategy you think will be the most effective in helping and then pair the strategy with motivations if you think it’s still necessary. That way you can really help OP be the most effective. If you don’t do that, just sounds like you wanna critique and whine about OP’s motivations.

On the motivations behind the same actions having different consequences: you are correct, it really sounds like you’ve avoided the question. When people have read and understood books, they usually are able to bring the argument in themselves.

Here I’ll give you a simple counter-example of the exact same act with two different motivators and the same consequence:

Person A wants to help and asks person B in some specific way: “Do you wanna learn how to read?” The result is: Person B answers yes.

Person A wants to look good and asks person B in the same specific way: “Do you wanna learn how to read?”. The result is: Person B answers yes.

Even if the motivation behind the same exact act would change the consequences, you’d have to demonstrate that’s true instead of vaguely pointing at literature.

Just use your interpretation of best when you said “better” advice in your original comment. Seems like the metric towards “best” is “more likely to actually help”.

Also, you can give a few example of motivations that would end up with the strategies most likely to actually work. Maybe OP didn’t think of these motivations themselves, but they would adopt when you state them out loud for us.

But coming back to my main point, I still don’t see how the motivation could dictate strategies most likely to help.

Even with the “worst” motivation, why couldn’t OP apply the “best” strategy towards helping?

because that informs strategies for helping

I asked how so

Agreed, also recommend doing this completely in private so they don’t feel like there may be other people listening to your offer.

Why are you questioning the motivation behind someone trying to do a selfless act? An act that could even be described as altruistic. How does knowing OP’s motivation helps you and OP convince their relative?

I’m just asking questions so I can help you help OP.

There’s nothing stopping a malicious user from doing that right now. Be aware that anyone who wants can already see your votes.

We already depend on trusting instances for a lot of what’s going on here, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to defederate untrusted ones.

1. Currently, any admin can modify any local user activity, can’t they?
2. Not really, your local instance may still hold the vote data for validation. And therefore could be ported and resigned.
3. Don’t see the problem.
4. Today, each instance decides whomever they want federation with. The ones who decide the criteria should be the same ones who decide whom the instance federates with.

Your first comment expands on both privacy and security. There is no privacy without some type of security.

Now to answer your questions: Yes and yes. Users from c/all were downvoting posts from a small community I’m a part of because they don’t agree with. I couldn’t see the posts from small communities that are important to me because of that. Now we have the possibility to sort by “scaled”, which fixes that. Sometimes there are discussions that are very relevant as to who is voting for what. But that discussion has nothing to do with privacy, which was your first point and went unacknowledged on your second comment.

Not only admins can see the votes, but anyone on Fediverse (except regular Lemmy users) can see them.

Security through obscurity is prone to failure when it is used by itself. If people want their votes to actually be private then another method of securing their privacy should be created.

User choice would be best indeed. The problem is that currently the votes are public but hidden from Lemmy regular users. Anonymize votes seems to be such a big problem the devs don’t even want to consider it.

I completely agree with the idea of more accountability. We are real people in acting public right here, we should be constantly aware that our actions have consequences. If you don’t want your pseudonym associated with a vote, don’t do it. It’s kinda like the opposite of 4chan, where instand of anonymous controversial content on top, here we have human-curated content being pushed up.

What it the instance signs the activity? Then it propagates to others instances after local validation. That way only local admins would have access to voting data. Malicious instances could still be defederated/blocked/have votes disregarded.

Works with CUDA and RDPing on a 2x2 monitor grid?

You said you used river, so I’ve checked their wiki https://github.com/riverwm/river/wiki/Recommended-Software#output-configuration

Maybe you can add your tool there as well.

Looks similar to https://git.sr.ht/~leon_plickat/wlopm/

Still, very easy to miss a post from a small community when you’ve got many other larger subscriptions.

It would be best to try every single one separately, otherwise you’ll have dozens of programs that do the exact same thing, like file explorers.

That said, with Fedora you can list available desktop environments using the default package manager, dnf. In a terminal use the dnf group list command to list all available desktop environments:

dnf group list --available *desktop

Install the required desktop environment using the dnf install command. Ensure to prefix with the @ sign, for example:

dnf install @kde-desktop-environment

After trying the DE, you can remove it with:

dnf remove @kde-desktop-environment

I think we should make every interaction publicly available, until we find a way to actually make it private. As you’ve said, anyone who wants and have the means will see the information anyway.