A large enough userbase to support more niche topics. On Lemmy, like a lot of small communities, people tend to put the cart before the horse. They make places to share content for very niche topics but there aren't enough to warrant it. Plus sometimes you have mods in certain relatively niche groups that will remove content from their community because it is off topic, but their volume of posts is nowhere near enough for the occasional, technically off topic post to really matter. I see it in Discord servers too. Some places have more channels than users on the server. People get obsessed with categorization.
Jokes aside, I think a big aspect of it is "I don't want to hurt the goose." Like if people were in a cage match with a goose, they'd obviously take it down, but you don't wanna just hurt some animal for no reason.
Yes. Rancher desktop exists, btw. Just an fyi.
Edit: An open source alternative to Docker Desktop. It has most of the same features. Occasionally I've run into something that doesn't work, but for the most part it's just peachy.
How exactly is it using four orders of magnitude more space? Did you look what the files?
Can't copyright a name, it's trademarked though.
It's odd that it shows Brave as FOSS but not Firefox. Assuming it's not merely that nobody listed Firefox as FOSS yet and it's because Firefox's page says the "source code" is licensed under MPL but not the binary itself... Brave literally has this on the app.

My understanding was that all rights reserved meant specifically not foss. Like it's just the default copyright. But Brave lists itself as using MPL on another page. Which is ironic, because obviously Firefox uses MPL.
I feel like this is just because nobody submitted Firefox as FOSS yet.
Arch and derivatives expect you to check the news file before upgrading, but do not integrate this into the upgrade tool. I have not personally ran into a problem this way, but it's frustrating that pacman doesn't have any capability to do this if you're expected to.
Did you ever try gnome? That's what OP asked.
I think the reason a lot of men who are stuck in this mindset stay stuck in it is because the only time they actually do think they can be vulnerable is when expressing love to their partner. So it's something they crave and don't realize they can be vulnerable in other contexts. I think it's part of what leads to red pill mentality.
It's hard for men to understand how patriarchy also hurts them. It expects men to be stoic protectors. Emotional vulnerability is a sign of weakness under that worldview.
One that has stuck with me lately was "mistook sign for signified."
I don't believe arbitration agreements should be legal at all, but with how conservative US courts are right now, I doubt we'll see it overturned.
Yeah, those lawyers should be doing QA.