How is it less confusing when your fork is also on github?
Nevertheless, to avoid ambiguity I usually name my personal forks on GitHub gh-<username>.
And of course in Git every clone is a fork.
AGit seems to be a new alternative where apparently you can push a new branch to someone else's repository that you don't normally have access to, but that's never guaranteed to be possible, and is certainly very idiosyncratic.
That's backwards. In Github every fork is just a git clone. Before GitHub commandeered the term "fork' was already in common use and it had a completely different meaning.
All those workflows are just as valid as the others, I was just pointing out that the way github does it is not the only way it can be done.
Ah yes, I'm sure the remote being called "origin" is what confuses people when they have to push to a refspec with push options. That's so much more straightforward than a button "create pull request".
It's like arguing that instead of having salad or fries on the menu with your entree they should only serve fries.