IANAL, but I think /r/legaladvice might say in a case like this that once you've communicated to your landlord that the AC is busted, you should move into a hotel until the AC is fixed, send bills for reimbursement to the landlord, and refuse to pay more than your regular rent charge. Theoretically, the courts should back you up. (Unless, again, AC isn't considered a big enough deal to make your place uninhabitable in the eyes of the law locally.) Though also, if you don't have enough money on hand to just go stay at a hotel, reimbursement may not be good enough to justify that plan for your particular case. I dunno. Might be worth researching your options more, though.
Edit: LilB0kChoy has some relevant info in another comment, however, that makes it seem less likely that you'd be able to use the law in your favor here. :/
I don't know about other places, but in the U.S., generally if your house is fucked to the extent of being kindof uninhabitable (and I'd think no AC would qualify -- though maybe depending on local climate, that might not so much be seen as the case?), your landlord would have to get it fixed or pay for a hotel stay until it was fixed.
Or maybe in your case, it's more of a condo situation where you don't have a landlord.
Or maybe I'm off base thinking a lack of AC in July would qualify as sufficiently uninhabitable to require your landlord to be responsible for an alternate dwelling.
Well, my experience was that at first, I didn't see the forks at all. (That is to say I didn't recognize them as "forks". Or even as "things".) The forks looked like some blurry, nondescript background and the "pepper shapes" looked like foreground items hanging from something unseen off the top. The shapes didn't look really like anything I could identify. That lasted for a good 30 seconds before, very (very) suddenly, it crystalized and I could only see the forks on a purple background. Really uncanny how rapidly and entirely it shifted. After a good amount of effort, I was able to shift back to the first perception, but it took considerable effort along with looking away and back a couple of times. And once I achieved it, it felt hard to maintain. Very strange experience. Far more so than most "bistable" sort of optical illusions I've seen.
Oh, Jesus. I read "below" to mean it was referring to the number directly "below" the instructions. I didn't even consider that it could be read another way. Fuck everything about that test.
Like, the edit button doesn't appear? Or it does, but clicking it doesn't change the post/comment into an editable field? Or it does but hitting "save" does nothing? Or it appears to save, but refreshing the page still shows the old content? Or does it give you an error message? Or what?
In my experience, I will say Lemmy-UI isn't the best about displaying errors to the user. Like, sometimes things go wrong and it doesn't tell you something went wrong. It just acts like you never hit the button. If I were you, I'd look around in developer tools. Hit F12 to get into it, go to the network tab, try to edit a post, and theoretically something should show up red in the network tab. Maybe click on the red thing, poke around, and see if you can find an error message either in the response body or in a response header or something. If that doesn't work, retry while in the console tab and see if any useful message comes up there.
If you get any sort of error message, definitely feel free to post it in this thread. Someone might have an idea what to do.
One warning: posting the wrong sort of data from Developer Tools can compromise your account. So I'd recommend against posting screenshots of your Developer Tools window. Probably pasting only human-readable text (as text, not in a screenshot) would be best.
There will never be a limit that won't (rarely) inconvenience someone. (Unless they make the limit absolutely ridiculous or remove the limit all together.)
Your list is missing some things. Link, title, thumbnail, author name, link domain name, upvotes/downvotes total, community, instance, how long ago it was posted, and many other things. But perhaps most importantly, the post body. More context is what the body of the post is for.
Also, why 225-250? Why not 350? Why not 600? Why should we expect that if we set it to 250 or 300 that there won't still be a threshold just a few more characters away from that limit that would supposedly improve things for another 0.01% of posts?
I don't agree that a longer title field would even be "better" for the particular post you linked. The linked post could be titled something like "New Executive Order: 'Preventing Woke AI In The Federal Government'" and if you didn't think the linked-to page could speak entirely for itself, you could elaborate at great length in the post body.
I mean, you should tip the barista, though.