Yeap, along with `+++`, `**` and mixing if I remember correctly. I don't understand the logic of using an non-standard syntax because some non-standard implementations may not render correctly.

Actually, yes, now you know for a fact that none of the Markdown implementation will render it correctly.

So, I guess, they used `~~~` instead and it was an error in OP post.

The problem here is that if you use ``` as a token in a non-markdown language, then it's going to be very hard to embed that code in a markdown code block. That problem doesn't happen with other syntax as it's already escaped by the code block. `---` inside a markdown code block will render as a literal `---`.

To embed content with multiple sequential backticks, use more backticks than the max run.

In theory, yes. But not all markdown implementations support this properly.

The CommonMark spec even has an example test case! The excuses for poor implementations are pretty thin.

Not all markdown implementations are CommonMark

There's not much reason to be anything else than CommonMark + extensions.

For new implementations, sure. But it's harder to change existing implementations (anything not already CommonMark-compatible will introduce unexpected changes to existing content if you switch to CommonMark), and especially for anything that's not being actively developed it's unlikely to ever change.