I guess this goes here, since it's preeeetty minor.
Avatar scaling in posts right now is a slight bit odd. From what I can tell, it scales them to 204 width by 200 height maximum. If an image has greater width than height, it'll maintain aspect ratio just fine. If it has greater height than width, it'll stretch it out to the aforementioned maximum. So basically what I'm curious about is if say the max scale was set to a square 200x200, would it always maintain aspect ratio whether a wide or tall image?
EDIT: Oh and, perfectly square images also get stretched to 204.
Just as a caveat, I didn't have anything to do with the building of our current layout. I wish I did, but I didn't xD but, after testing different avatars and using dev tool in chrome, I'm gonna go ahead and say that no, it would not maintain aspect ratio.
As far as I can tell, the goal of the resizing is to have the image fit the width of the entire column. If an image is wider than it is tall, there's no need for the aspect ratio to be altered--the image can just be scaled proportionately to fit the width of the column. If the image is taller than it is wide, however, in order to fit the width of the column and not exceed the 200px height limit, it must be stretched horizontally, altering the aspect ratio. Changing the 204px width to 200px would not affect this; it would simply stretch it 4px less wide.
Don't really know why 204px is the number, though. If anything it should be 205px max width with a max height of 205px, that way the image can be square and actually fill the entire column (the way it is currently, there's still a 1px vertical strip to the left of each avatar), without any unnecessary stretching being done for an avatar that's like, normal (square).