I think the biggest downside is the fact that you wouldn't be able to carry it on an airplane

For most people, especially work computer/laptop users, making the update happen by default on restart or during sleep hours does a lot to keep the pc updated, because they would otherwise never do it themselves. There is a somewhat large minority of users who complain about such behaviour, but these are mostly people into computers anyways and can update their stuff anyways.

But the biggest gripe is the horrid implementation of the start menu power buttons in windows:

• update and restart: mostly works as you would expect - updates and boots the pc
• update and shutdown: updates the pc, and instead of leaving the pc in shutdown state, many times it just boots the pc again, working like update and restart
• restart/shutdown without updating: non-insignificant chance of it doing the update anyways

Technically it'll still be the 3rd date, because artemis IV will be the 4th mission to the moon.

Artemis III is more like practicing putting on protection at home/testing different sizes before commiting to the actual date....

There are also the move semantics in C++, which are similar to Rust's ownership transfer, but explicit and with some differences in how the data is actually handled under the hood

Linus Tech Tips did a video on having windows alongside macOS on the smae machine. They did it by having both as VMs on a barebones linux machines. Theoretically you could then dedicate each one of the operating systems to an OS, and run linux, windows, and mac side by side. My guess kn feasibility: very hard.

https://youtu.be/EozeSDeV3Vo

You need a graphics card or smth to even have the ability to have >3 displays. Some Macbooks have a 2 screen limit, so if you want to use only external monitors you have to close the lid. PC graphics generally allow at least 3 screens. But thunderbolt usb is an option.

While the original definitions of genocide were explicitly based on what soviets did in Ukranie...

Well but as far as I am aware Lemmy has no fiduciary responsibility, as it is not a corporation, is open source and uses a web standard to communicate. Therefore there is no requirement for instance server managers to use the "official" version of Lemmy and could refuse to implement anti-user features, like specific app requirements. So I would say it would be really really hard to enshittificate Lemmy, if not borderline impossible, because users would just use their own fork, which would still be interoperable.