I prefer the current behaviour.
It’s easy to open a link in a new tab without right clicking. You can middle click (Windows and Linux) or command+click (MacOS). However there’s no easy way to force a browser to open a link in the current tab if the site wants to use a new tab.
I’m not really sure that a K/V service is a more scalable option than Postgres for storing text posts and the like. If you’re not performing complex queries or requiring microsecond latencies then Postgres doesn’t require that much compute or memory.
People can get unnecessary scared of relational databases if they’ve had bad experiences with databases that are used poorly, but attempting to force relational data into a K/V can lead to the application layer essentially just doing a less efficient job of the same types of queries that the database would normally handle. Maybe there’ll be some future need to offload post and comment bodies into object storage or something but that seems incredibly premature.
Object storage for pictrs is definitely a fantastic addition, though.
If you’re expecting an experience like with blue or brown switches then you might be disappointed. Yellows are linear, so there’s no bump/click when the press registers.
I really like yellows for gaming, but if you’ll mostly be typing then you might prefer something else.
Expecting communities related to a certain topic to coalesce on a single server doesn’t seem like a good idea to me, but having some kind of community metadata would definitely be nice. As you said it’d be useful as a way to filtering out certain topics, and it might also be handy for community discovery.
I agree that it may have been bungled, but I think that some of what you said isn’t quite right.
The precise text of the constitutional amendment is already set forth. You can read it online. They put it in a physical booklet which was sent to every household in the country. You’re right that the messaging was far from perfect, especially near the start, but saying that the “yes” side can’t state what they want to change is a bit disingenuous.
Why I think it may have been bungled is that it’s the sort of change that needed to be made from a position of political strength, and I’m not sure that Labor were quite there. The “no” side was always going to have an advantage in that it’s usually easier to maintain the status quo than it is to change something.
This means that the “yes” proponents have to do a lot more work to argue their case, and when combined with the big problems that Australia is facing (cost of living, housing affordability, etc) I think a lot of folks who would be “in the middle” on the issue are understandably a bit irritated that the government can appear to be putting more work into this than those other issues.