But it does matter. I’m not sure if you are already aware and did it intentionally or if it was a happy accident, but FEJKA really is named that because it’s a real word in Swedish that comes from English with meaning very near to how you used it there.
Swedish adjective “fejk” comes from English adjective “fake”.
Swedish “fejka” is the verb form of the same, with the meaning similar to one of the English meanings of the verb form: To give the impression that something is a certain way when it is not.
And that’s what the FEJKA series of products happen to be. Artificial plants that look like they are real, even though they are not :)
And so back to the point of naming these pretend IKEA manuals. If they are to really look real without being real, they should be named in a way that would make even swedes second guess whether they might be real manuals. (When seen in a context where it was not immediately stated that they are imitations.)
> I’m not sure if you are already aware and did it intentionally or if it was a happy accident, but FEJKA really is named that because it’s a real word in Swedish that comes from English with meaning very near to how you used it there.
I guessed as much; I'm Polish but know enough English that I burst into laughter when I first saw a fake plant labeled FEJKA in a local IKEA store. In fact, I couldn't believe they'd be this direct with naming. But then I don't know enough Swedish to translate the other names.
(Still wonder what kind of geopolitical order they meant when they named their wardrobe system PAX. Or is it just because you can pack absurd amount of things into it?)
> If they are to really look real without being real, they should be named in a way that would make even swedes second guess whether they might be real manuals. (When seen in a context where it was not immediately stated that they are imitations.)
Fair enough. I was just making an unsophisticated joke about the FEJKA line :).
Not in these three fairly important ways: actual control, the wishes of the people who actually live there, de jure recognition by most countries. Otherwise, sure, totally and wholly Argentinian.
This is factually wrong, and disproven by the fact there are now fully independent federated instances such as BlackSky and soon to be NorthSky. Furthermore, they have independent codebases which are fully compatible. Compare to ActivityPub where most instances are just running Mastodon or some close fork or risk breaking compatibility. What's the point of federation if you are stuck with a monoculture of implementations?
The main BlueSky services are still by far the most popular, which is why we see centralization on the network.
Mastodon is definitely not the only fediverse setup that is popular, Misskey, Pleroma and forks of those integrate perfectly well. Given that the main Misskey instance is one of the largest fediverse instances (certainly by activity) it seems a bit unfair to criticize the fediverse on this. I mean, how many completely independent microblogging implementations does a network actually need? (Not even including things like Lemmy or Peertube which are also ActivityPub instances.)
On the other hand I really think you're underselling how much more popular Bluesky services are than any existing alternatives. I don't think we can actually see the distribution of network traffic, but I would be willing to bet decent money that the sum of all alternatives to the Bluesky AppView wouldn't even crack 0.01% the traffic of the main Bluesky AppView. And, honestly, I would probably bet even more money they'll never even come close to cracking 1% ever for the entire lifetime of the protocol, unless Bluesky Social PBC literally goes out of business.
The EU did make these requirements, Apple ignored them, the EU made Apple pay a big fine, and Apple put out some token process for browser engine approval that's not actually possible to pass but looks to bureaucrats like it meets the requirements.
reply