261–270 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a new benchmark results after you backported Nano Colors optimizations and refused to mentioned it https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78 Just look at performance changes history,
Were those new benchmark results before or after Andrey Sitnik removed a lot of the edgecase handlers from colorette? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28660536
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re talking about a terminal colorization function though. Fragmentation of packages aside, are there any other languages that have terminal text colorization built into the standard library?
Every serious programming language I've ever used... https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.console.f... It's even easier on UNIX-like terminals, where ANSI escape codes should work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder how “ai” would feel if you just forked postcss without attribution and opened PRs against popular projects to replace. Something tells me they wouldn’t be so calm about the whole affair
I promote PostCSS alternatives in PostCSS twitter account https://twitter.com/PostCSS/status/777344095748579328
Gorge Bucaran, author of Colorette, summarizes your actions here https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927134...:
"Colorette isn't some obscure project either. It is well used. Now imagine I find a project that meets that description. Clone it. Erase the .git directory. Initialize a new repository. Make a few extraneous changes. Incorrectly benchmark it. Falsely claim improved performance. Tweak the docs. Change the name. Add a logo. Start aggressively promoting it and sending PRs to high-profile projects while leveraging a non-trivial social media following. I'm not against forking a project and adding new value to it. I encourage that. But that's not what's going on here. This is the collector getting away with a new piece for their collection."
Comparing that, to "promoting alternatives" to one of your projects on Twitter, shows a creepy lack of acknowledgement.
But that's why we're here, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am mentioning it in Babel PRs: > It will have a good support. My other projects from nano-series like very popular Nano ID shows a minimal number of bugs and excellent response time.
He meant you should mention your bias in the comments on HN, naturally you’re going to think you’re right (and they will think they’re right). It was my understanding that the commit history wasn’t originally saved - maybe this was wrong, did you have the commit history immediately after copying the code base? The main issue is then replacing it in open source software where the other version exists without due cause…
When people later explained how to keep the history of single file I tried to restored it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was on the forker’s side of things until those last two points: I don’t think anybody should have to justify creating a fork, but the (seemingly intentional) stripping of the revision history and absence of attribution indicates a bad actor to me.
Many legal things are immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chalk’s purpose is to color things printed to the terminal. Unless it’s performance is atrocious, which I doubt, it doesn’t matter unless a ridiculous amount of data is printed. Chalk is downloaded 15 millions per day . We probably can multiply how much time has wasted from 15 millions run per day. It matters collectively. > No, they say it doesn’t matter for chalk’s use case. Which is command-line tools that are a…
I don't have a horse in this race, but I am a bit bothered by two arguments, because I see variations on them so often (so this is less of a reply to you personally). > Chalk is downloaded 15 millions per day. > We probably can multiply how much time has wasted from 15 millions run per day. It matters collectively. If I give you back 5 seconds each day, will it matter to you? Will you be able to enjoy or do something…
Another side of this story https://twitter.com/sitnikcode/status/1441824191624486924 Also at the end Colorette’s author back-ported Nano Colors performance optimizations, but this time he refuse to mention another developer. https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78
Wow, that second link is incredibly petty. makes ai look even worse.
iskin on HN is Andrey Sitnik (ai).
I keep thinking about this event and it seems like a fractal of bizarre phenomena. The act of stripping git history and attribution while forking is itself malicious, but then aggressively creating pull requests across major projects to use the new version and rack up your download count (???), then picking petty fights with the creator of the original over attribution (????), and the fanbase (?????) of the forker do…
The absolutely crazy thing is the person who caused this doesn't even think they did anything wrong: https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-92724... And there are people supporting their position. I think because JS is such a large tent, there are folks not familiar with licenses and general norms in this space. I don't think it's something that being reasonable and pointing things out wouldn't fix. A…
And now he's saying this of the person he took the work from [1]:
1. "I believe he is a good person, but love colorette too much and prefer impulsive actions ... Impulsive behavior can be very dangerous."
2. "Comments like this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28662796] shows that his behavior in that case was very questionable. Seems like he is systematically put himself in conflicts."
True or not, I find his claims of the victim having impulsive or questionable behavior, and systematically creating conflicts, ironic.
On a more positive note - it looks like both parties are starting to discuss a resolution [1]; maybe even co-maintainership of the original work in question [2]. I personally think that would take a lot of guts, from both parties, given everything that's transpired.
I also think johnnyshields in the linked GitHub thread [1] deserves acknowledgement for some noticeably simple, but effective, attempts at facilitating resolution.
[1] https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927346...
[2] https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1442055448899641348
I keep thinking about this event and it seems like a fractal of bizarre phenomena. The act of stripping git history and attribution while forking is itself malicious, but then aggressively creating pull requests across major projects to use the new version and rack up your download count (???), then picking petty fights with the creator of the original over attribution (????), and the fanbase (?????) of the forker do…
Honestly the best thing you can do is just not use Twitter or Github for social reasons. It's almost a sport at this rate. People trying their best to create drama and false gods. It's almost as bad as LinkedIn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there's anything malicious going on The dev who copied the code forked someone’s repo, went out of his way to remove attribution and git history, sent PRs to replace the original package in other libraries with his own version, and when called out on it got defensive instead of apologizing. I think malicious is a fair way to describe his behavior.
This is Nano Colors author. Even before this Twitter thread we had talk with Colorette author and I added mention to the docs, his name to LICENSE and promised him to not replace Colorette by Nano Colors. The Colorette mention was there 5 days ago.
And was that before or after you opened several PRs to replace Colorette with Nano Colors?