Deebster

It's so good that initially assumed they were different photos and the joke was it wasn't an edit at all.

It means I don't attempt to clean dishes with the ones that have been used for cleaning floors, toilets, etc.

I cut a corner off the old sponges, like they do for passports.

Once heated, the milk's amino acids acted as a mild sedative, helping one sleep.

Surely the amino acids don't need to be heated before drinking to work?

This is great composition, and a cool photo

I don't know this meme format, who's that? Tim Apple?

It now says

We do this at [name redacted as this was a joke].

Or (B)ritain? Once I even found (T)he UK, which I only discovered by searching the page source.

I thought you mean he'd mailed it to you.

Ok, so Lemmy doesn't cause the same amount of duplication, but I'd still argue that dedupe is valuable: it saves on hosting costs (your costs, in this case) and users will get a small advantage in having slightly higher cache hits.

Yes, for example go to https://infosec.exchange/explore

I see the top post as https://infosec.exchange/@[email protected]/113433063621462027 and the image is https://media.infosec.exchange/infosec.exchange/cache/media_attachments/files/113/433/063/582/671/258/original/71da3801e4e4f08c.png

The link is to the original on https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/433/062/676/773/993/original/f828afef5cc7ed1c.png but when you click image the javascript loads a modal with the local cached version (same image as the thumbnail that infosec.exchange loads.

There's lots of different codebases across the fediverse so perhaps some hotlink, but local copies is the default.

I think the major advantage is the deduplication - when an image goes viral across Mastodon (or Lemmy) it's currently stored hundreds or thousands of times, each with its own cost. Do you dedupe (for either your customers' benefit or your own)?