seanblue pointed out that mentioning a non-existent user still bolds the text, even though it’s not clickable. jomaxro wondered if this was a side effect of a recent change. Others, including JimPas and Stephen, noted that this behavior can be useful for teaching how to mention users without actually pinging a real user. However, codinghorror recommended using code blocks to demonstrate features without triggering them, as also suggested by Canapin.
Not sure if this was intentional, so I figured I’d bring it up. If you @ a non-existent user, the text is still bolded, though it doesn’t have the background and it’s not clickable. Obviously it doesn’t really matter, but 
Without @:
NotARealUser
With @:
@NotARealUser
Side effect of the recent “not mentionable” change @eviltrout? It is true the user isn’t mentionable, but that’s because they don’t exist…
That is actually good for using as an example when teaching someone how to mention users - without actually pinging a real user. 
I’d probably use a code block for that @JimPas.
Why? Bold makes it visually distinct automatically, without knowing or needing to use additional markdown.
That’s like using a saw to open a can with a ring pull.
That’s true, but the best example to teach someone how mention works is precisely mentioning this person itself, right? So they even see how they’re notified about it.
I also often use code block when I have to “teach” a feature without triggering it though.
This is definitely the recommended approach
This is definitely the `recommended` approach