IMO, one of the worst parts of the article is this quote:

[…] “We might have to put DOGE on Elon,” [Trump] said. […] “If DOGE looks at Musk, we’re going to save a fortune,[sic]” […] ^[1]

To me, this reads as an admission of guilt from Trump that he instructs DOGE to withhold its scrutiny from entities favorable to him, and that he biases it towards entities unfavorable to him.

[…] Solarpunk’s Pleasant Politics comm has an automod that bans and unbans based on recent karma ratios. […]

Do they have any documentation for that behavior? If so, could you link it?

Karma does not persist […]

I’m not sure what you mean; if I look at your account, for example, I can see all of your past vote scores ^[1].

OpenStreetMap Community Forum

Thunder

Zero. I believe that the negotiations of an employee’s market value are between the employee and their employer. I don’t believe that it is my responsibility to charitably subsidize a company through the subsidization of their employees’ wages.

“The President has invited you to the Gulf of Laogai.”

How to Cure Fungus on Aquarium Fish

Am I going to be patient zero for an IRL Last of Us?

[…] reaching for it as evidence that I might be confused is such a stretch […]

I suspect this statement is the source of all of this. When I sent this comment, I wasn’t trying to do some “gotcha”. I thought we were, in a sense, investigating together through documentation to try an find the right answer to the question. From my perspective, you provided an idea of what it could be, and I was trying to work with you to narrow down if that was for sure what we were looking for by providing some documentation that I came across. I wasn’t trying to insult your intelligence, or belittle you or your help. I simply thought we were brainstorming together.

[…] you replied to it 9 times. […]

I personally try to keep my responses atomic to the topic.

[…] It’s too late to complain about it now.

I’m not complaining, I just didn’t understand what the point was that you were trying to make.

[…] a authoritative-looking post […]

What do you mean by this exactly? Is it synonymous with your usage of “objective resource”?

It reads like you intend for your post to be an objective resource for others to use, but then fall back to it being good enough for your subjective purpose when questioned about it.

First, what do you exactly mean by “objective resource”? Second, what makes you think that it’s intended to be an “objective resource”? Are you saying that my use of citations gives you that impression?

If […] I didn’t think your second follow-up question was disingenuous […]

For clarity, it wasn’t intended to be disingenuous. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I’m always trying to improve how I interact with others.

That was never my argument. I think you know this. […] Being reluctant to answer any more questions about a topic doesn’t mean I was wrong to provide an initial answer. It just means my bandwidth has been exceeded. […]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When I read this:

I don’t even use Lemmy, so - in my opinion - you’re asking the wrong question to the wrong person.

I interpreted it to litterally mean that I shouldn’t ask you questions about Lemmy because you don’t use it. I interpret your statement that you don’t use Lemmy to mean that you are less likely to have knowledge about Lemmy because you don’t use it.

At any rate, this is moot, as I mentioned above that I cannot know, prior to you telling me, what your experience is. And furthermore, I didn’t ask you anything. You volunteered an answer.

Noted! Thank you for clarifying 😊 Perhaps this link that you provided in another comment ^[1] would be more accurate to what the server does now?

[…] It’s perfectly possible to create a frontend that puts it’s own limits on username length, and there’s some that no doubt already exist, so a brute-force test of those limits isn’t telling you anything reliable about what Lemmy’s internal limits are.

I don’t dispute your concern; however, for my needs, in all practical purposes, if the frontend did place its own unique restrictions on the username length, it wouldn’t matter, as the uncertainty of the length of the username when creating an account through the frontend is why I created this post.

That being said, I think it’s worth distinguishing between the two (API and frontend) in the solution section of my post. I will update it.

I used ‘unscientific’ because it would be a pain in the arse for someone else to reproduce […]

This is obviously an argument of definitions, but, at any rate, I disagree that a qualification for something to be scientific is that it must be easily reproducible; for something to be scientific it simply simply must be reproducible ^[1[2[3]]].

Hm, I think what’s confusing things a bit in this conversation is that my original question is a bit of an XY problem — I asked about the maximum username length of a Lemmy account, yet I was, in reality, looking for the username length limits imposed by my instance (the answer for one instance may or may not apply to other instances). So that’s my fault for not being accurate/clear enough in my initial question.

[…] Either something is solved or it isn’t, but it shouldn’t be marked ‘solved’ with links to answers of questionable accuracy.

This is a fair point, I think. Do you propose an alternative word? At what point would you say that it is justified to use “solved”? I used “solved” because, for my purposes, the question is answered (I know now that SJW has a max username length of 50, which is the only information that I personally needed).