ExFed

It probably boils down to the definition of “user” vs. owner/admin/host … But I wouldn’t be surprised if those definitions were unclear or missing entirely.

argues like an annoying 14 year old atheist that just discovered Internet arguments and the think whole Internet is Christian

Brilliant. I’m saving this imagery for later.

You’re right that keeping European Honey Bees (Apis mellifera), even though they are introduced/invasive to North America, isn’t usually detrimental to native pollinators. However, Apis is in no way in danger; they are an agricultural livestock.

Point is, saying you’re “saving the bees” by keeping honey bee hives is like saying you’re “saving the birds” by keeping chickens. Weird flex, but okay.

Hard disagree. This is a problem every web service has had to deal with since the beginning of the web: what happens when a host (either the machine or the person) stops working? How do you keep the service up?

Centralized services solve that problem with internally funded, transparent redundancy. Federation solves the problem with externally funded, highly-visible redundancy. They’re still the same solution, just a different way of going about it.

You could argue that user identity is lost due to the discontinuity between instances, but that’s probably something the Lemmy devs could fix without too much hassle.

Care to elaborate?

Ahh, okay, so nothing new under the sun: Hipsters hate normies and September never ended.

Although I’m under the impression that Mint and Pop have taken a bite out of the “beginner desktop” market, Ubuntu is most of what I observe in the office when everybody else is booting Windows.

I can understand selecting for novelty; I’m usually in that camp. But novelty shouldn’t come at the expense of an argument to IT departments that they should support at least one Linux distro.

For those of us still naive … Why does Lemmy say “Ubuntu bad” now?