CasaOS is not an operating system and more like a GUI for Docker

So it’s more like Portainer?

One metric you might want to add is the network effect: how much of a difference does it make to the user experience to join a large instance (or the same instance most of your friends are on) compared to a small or self-hosted one? (Or in other words—does the nature of the platform software potentially incentivize consolidation?)

If there are a bunch of posts on a particular topic, shouldn’t it keep at least one of them? Otherwise it would tend to completely filter out the most significant or interesting topics.

Internal server (Home Assistant etc.): domus
External server (Nextcloud etc.): nimbus
Router/firewall: murus

I believe so—see Wake-on-LAN.

deleted by creator

One under-appreciated aspect of Docker is that it forces you to document all your setup steps in your dockerfile and docker-config files.

The generational divide is just one instance of a broader phenomenon—similar divisions exist in adults between our constructed personas for family, work, friends, interest groups, etc.

Or maybe a server that lets you create multiple, “connected” accounts at the same time, together with a client that combines the accounts into one view.

I remember the steady turnover of social media networks leading up to Facebook—the joke was that kids would migrate to a new platform every time their parents joined their current one. I think there’s a kernel of truth there that’s still a potential weak point on Facebook: people want to have distinct, non-overlapping online personas for different social groups (family, work, friends, etc) without the overhead of maintaining multiple accounts. That seems like an avenue a potential fediverse Facebook alternative might exploit.

I haven’t tried it because I’ve read a lot of negative discussions of it—and because (by my understanding) the only reasonable use case would be if there were a large number of users and each user is likely to have copies of the same files but don’t want to expose their files to each other (so you can’t just manually de-dupe).

Am I missing something, or does karma (as a cumulative per-user measure) not play any functional role in Lemmy anyway?

Thanks—I meant “formal” as in “formal grammar”, not that it wasn’t described in the published protocol. As in, there’s nothing in the protocol’s explicit form that distinguishes between this implied meaning and a real extra recipient—so it simplifies the parsing but adds an extra post-parsing step.

Why not a binary flag or something? Is it just to avoid making it a formal part of the protocol?

Does ActivityPub really send copies of all activities to www.w3.org?

I believe that an out-of-the-box lemmy instance will remove deleted content from federated instances automatically.

My point is just that site maintainers can modify the software to do whatever they want, or run software that implements ActivityPub but whose functionality is completely different from that of lemmy.

As another commenter has said, this is likely just a feature of the interface and not a reflection of what other users see.

But you should keep in mind that, due to the nature of federation, your posts are copied to all other instances that are federated with yours—which in theory includes not just lemmy instances but any software implementing the ActivityPub protocol. Whether those instances actually remove posts you’ve marked as deleted is up to their discretion.