We have Dissociative Identity Disorder and are plural (https://morethanone.info). We also tend to use plural first-person pronouns (such as "we" or "us") to refer to ourselves as a system.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/logandark; my proof: https://keybase.io/logandark/sigs/m6zjqnGMWscZConP_8q5dTxchLtZC37IPnwlaj0mBGo ]
Once again, I have issue only with his taking it back after already open-sourcing it. It felt disingenuous. That's all. I would have no issue with simply never open-sourcing, but he open-sourced it and then took it back.
He could've never open-sourced it in the first place. He could've archived it and kept the rest of the development private. He could've done anything other than what he did. It's one thing to take back something that you never intended to release, but he fully intended to release it and even made a video about how it's fully open and available, but then he just went actually nevermind.
It's just so, infuriating that he would take it away like this after he told everyone he was giving it out. To me, that act of taking it away takes precedence over whatever I'd think if he'd kept it closed all along.
Edit: I just looked it up and apparently he did keep an archive online. I swear he'd taken it down before and there was a whole thing about this, but maybe he put it back up later? It's here: https://github.com/ange-yaghi/engine-sim
I'm still just not really comfortable with the ethics of withdrawing source code that you previously published. There are tons and tons of things he could've simply kept to himself on top of his first release, but he chose to take back the entire release instead.
Like, he seemingly fully intended it for the public because it's cool and interesting and he wanted to show how it worked, but then he simply changed his mind and completely removed all of it? Makes me doubt he has the public interest in mind at all, because he could've still developed the Steam version and kept that version closed source, but he just decided to take back all his goodwill instead
He published it as open-source for like 5 seconds before taking the repository down in order to charge for it on Steam! I'm a little weirded out by that pattern of open-sourcing it and then just changing his mind.
Weirdly, this seems like they're trying to train a model to work like Apple? They seem really interested in processes and how stuff is done, rather than only the finished artifacts.
For local inference, the difference between 25t/s and 70t/s is a lot. For some models I struggle to even reach 15t/s. And "some models" aren't even large models, Gemma 4 13b has this issue for some reason. For stuff like Qwen3.6-27B I can hardly reach 10t/s, even with fully custom inference made by Fable 5!
Can't really run it as well, though. My "mini PC" is an M4 Max with 128GB of unified memory and the memory bandwidth is still sorely lacking for inference (although it's far better than any non-unified consumer architecture!).
There are many dependency horrors of Rust, especially in larger projects, but I will say I've never been particularly put off by community-maintained crates that are free to make breaking changes for correctness or flexibility. Things like `temporal-rs` feel like a huge win, even given the long tail of crates with outdated dependencies (or overly-rigid APIs, etc.), and I tend to agree with Rust's smaller standard library.
For example, std's linked list seems rarely useful for anything but scripting, and could've easily been a crate. I don't think it's egregious or anything, it's just a bit meh. I don't really use Rust for scripting though (I usually use zsh or TypeScript), so maybe it's super valuable in specific cases.
It's as if it's sucking up to me or apologizing at every turn, even when it's done exactly what I've asked. Seems related to sycophancy, but different? (i.e. rather than unconditionally affirming the user it's unconditionally expecting to disappoint)
> And that's exactly the thing that somehow never happened in the Rust ecosystem. I always joke that the Rust ecosystem has more OpenGL bindings than developers, because there's just so many low quality bindings or wrappers out there that the ecosystem in result got too noisy to maintain.
Rust seems to attract a lot of horizontal programming. I have done mainly that so far and I LOVE Rust for it.
AIUI, horizontal programming is fully building out each abstraction before you start building on top of it, as opposed to vertical programming, which generally seeks to accomplish the task as directly and straightforwardly as possible, and only abstract if needed.
This leads to things like the proliferation of bindings, abstraction layers, frameworks etc. with little downstream users to show for it. And often little influence from experience using them. Sometimes very technically impressive but otherwise not always fleshed out to the point of being practically usable.
I am sure there's tons of toxicity all over the place too but I chalk it up to differing mindsets / patterns of development.
To me it sends the message that people who quit smoking tend to live longer than people who don't, but not that the act of quitting smoking had anything to do with anything. Specifically, if someone without the mindset to naturally quit smoking sees that study and quits only to hopefully live longer, they may not benefit nearly as much as someone who actually cares enough to more generally quit harming themselves.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/logandark; my proof: https://keybase.io/logandark/sigs/m6zjqnGMWscZConP_8q5dTxchLtZC37IPnwlaj0mBGo ]