Well an uppercase ASCII char is a different char than its lowercase counterpart. I would argue that not differentiating between them is an arbitrary rule that doesn’t make any sense, and in many cases, is more computationally difficult as it involves more comparisons and string manipulations (converting everything to lower case).
And the result is that you ultimately get files with visually distinct names, that aren’t actually treated as distinct, and so there is a disconnect from how we process information and how the computer is doing it.
‘A’ != ‘a’, they are just as unequal as ‘a’ and ‘b’
Edit: I would say the use case is exactly the same as programming case sensitivity, characters have meaning and capitalizing them has intent. Casing strategies are immensely prevalent in programming and carry a lot of weight for identifying programmers’ intent (properties vs backing fields as an example) similar intent can be shown with file names.
It’s an anti commercial license. The thought is that, they don’t mind if people copy their comments, save them, re use them, etcetera, they just don’t want people to make money off of them, likely this is a response to AI companies profiting off of user comments
However I’m not sure if just linking the license without context that the comment itself is meant to be licensed as such would be effective. If it came down to brass tacks I don’t know if it would hold up.
Instead they should say something like
‘this work is licensed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license’
I’m also not sure how it works with the licenses of the instance it’s posted on, and the instances that federate with, store and reproduce the content.