Comment by elif
6 hours ago
Sorry to be the one to inform you that we edit history in git.
There has been reporting on nemoclaw for the last couple weeks. Are you supposing that journalists were writing about software that hadn't even been designed?
6 hours ago
Sorry to be the one to inform you that we edit history in git.
There has been reporting on nemoclaw for the last couple weeks. Are you supposing that journalists were writing about software that hadn't even been designed?
> Sorry to be the one to inform you that we edit history in git.
Who is "we"? Do you work for NVidia?
> There has been reporting on nemoclaw for the last couple weeks.
The earliest reporting I've seen was yesterday. Can you link something from prior to March 14?
edit: I did find some articles from before March 14[0] which says NVidia was "prepping" this. Which is extremely funny, because it means they were hyping up software which hadn't even started being written yet. The AI bubble truly does not stop delivering.
> Are you supposing that journalists were writing about software that hadn't even been designed?
If you think journalists writing about things that will never exist is new, welcome to the real world. There's a whole term for it.[1]
[0] https://fudzilla.com/nvidia-opens-the-gates-with-nemoclaw/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
alright so the git history goes back 4 days.
I learned about nemoclaw 5 days ago here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2lMpLjxWA
but it was reported 8 days ago here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=345GsxnrHHg
I am not anyone special. I don't know anything about nvidia. I just know that the "4 day history" you think matters, is not a reasonable belief given that random youtubers have been reporting on it.
and by "we" i mean git users. people who used git for its usefulness before github existed, and understand the value of a clean history over an accurate history.
There's nothing clean about the history. You think commits like [0], with the commit message "improve", count as "clean"? What do you think the motivation for the author would be to modify git history to make it appear that this was written over a weekend, including separating each feature/commit by a few hours, which corresponds to a reasonable amount of time that it may have taken to write that feature? Including a break on Mar 15 at 1:18 AM PDT before continuing to commit at Mar 15 at 12:43 PM PDT. Hey, isn't there a normal human behaviour that occurs around this time every day which takes 6-10 hours?
I'm fully aware you can rewrite git history to whatever you want, but this is an occam's razor situation here. You'd only think this wasn't a weekend project if you desperately wanted to believe that this was some major initiative for some reason.
[0] https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/commit/b9382d27d13b160dcf...