Or:
Time seems to move differently in the realm of the Wizard of Oz Bitwarden.
This might explain why Bitwarden still improves that fast if a day for them is done in 53 seconds for us.
Hah—that gave me a good laugh, I’ll look into this one. Is anyone experiencing this?
Have not seen this myself, but my guess is that Discourse resets the reaction counters at midnight UTC each day, and that Peter happened to reach his limit just before that reset time. Even if the counters are reset at midnight local time, Peter could have received that message at 23:59:07.
1 Like
The message actually first appeared on my phone as I was not taking care. I was reading a topic and wanted to “react” but got distracted and then kept on hitting the heart. So I probably liked/unliked around 4 to 8 times within a very short period of time. Back then the message even said “45 seconds”. Out of reflex I hit the OK button and then was: “Wait, what did it say ???” So I tried again on my computer inside a browser and got the message shown above.
My assumption is that the term “daily” is static and that what they actually mean is something like this:
Depending on your trust level you are allowed to react n times within t seconds/minutes/hours.
You have reached that limit. So now you will have to wait till these t seconds/minutes/hours have passed.
OK
Yes, I was able to reproduce this by mashing the heart icon. In my case, the imposed time penalty was 18 seconds.
Hmm, interesting, seems like a Discourse bug then?
Definitely a Discourse issue, but not sure whether it rises to the level of a bug — there is a mismatch between the wording of the error message and the condition that throws the error. If the error message wording is canonical (i.e., if it represents the intended behavior), then I suppose it should be considered a bug (because the code actually implements a rate limit, not a cumulative daily limit).