It's more like you're renting a car rather than owning a car - you'd be well within your rights to call yourself "carless" then, no?
I have this software package that I happen to own (the car) whose engine (the backend code) is claimed to be nonexistent, which annoys me slightly more than just "slightly" which motivates me enough to exchange micro-rants on forums with complete strangers.
There two factors that affect it:
1. The unit of time that the rental is active for. 2. Who controls the idle time of the resource.
Personally, when describing Lambda to people new to the concept, I eschew this "serverless" confusion completely by describing it as renting a server in 100ms increments for fractions of a penny. Works well for me!
I'd say "houseless" was an acceptable description. "homeless", ok, that definitely doesn't work for a renter.
> I'd say "houseless" was an acceptable description.
“Houseless” would be a very strange description of someone with a legal possessory interest in a house.
I'm not sure renting gives you any "possessory interest" in the house, does it? Can you cite some sources for that?
Yes.
> Can you cite some sources for that?
Ta.