Seems interesting an I'll take more of a peek after work, but one thing that stood out to me is the only way back to the home page after navigating to a repo is the back button. Going back to the home page via the back button also doesn't retain that "new" was selected. But I agree with others, I do like the simplicity of the site.

this hn thread is interesting as it feels like i'm getting to revisit a lot of decisions i've made in the design haha.

i debated this for a while too, some of my thinking for how it is is that i wanted the focus of a repository page to be _the repository_. so as much as we can, trim things that might detract.

it was also done with the intention that it's actually pretty rare for a user to find or explore repositories on github (more likely you find them here on hn or on twitter), so had the restraint of really trying _not_ to make gitdot anything like social media.

but thank you nonetheless for the feedback, i'll revisit it proper and see if i can make this more intuitive.

I think I can understand that reasoning. I do have a tendency to explore, especially at the start since it gives me a view of what the site can already do, cause I wouldn't want to run into issues with my own projects without knowing of the possible limitations ahead of time.

If anything since the keyboard shortcut already exists, you could always put it in little cursor menu at the bottom of the screen. But yeah up to you, I look forward to your progress.

I’m not sure I agree with all of your takes either. For example, I’m not anti-AI for coding, so that immediately made me click away. I’m glad I read the comments though because I think the take of “not using your code to train AI” makes a lot more sense.

But, I wanted to say thanks for posting this and being really open in the comments. It’s hard to get so much feedback so quickly. It’s a firehouse of criticism that’s hard to deal with.

You’re handling it well.

thank you mbreese, i know folks can be mean and i also recognize where they're coming from (we are certainly far from perfect), but this comment is nice to read.

thank you for the empathy.

you can press "h" to go back to homepage :)

I can't say I know how they actually did it, but taking a look at the trailer I can point out that it looks like the spaces are confined and your character is on rails. I'm mainly going off of the instant direction changes that don't appear to be 45 degrees off from the camera direction. Once it's constrained down to a single line/path you could do some wild things like cube mapping a video, where the position in the video is tied to the characters position. I can't say I know how they would take that video though, my best guess there is the scenes are constructed in 3d software, just it was to expensive for real time rendering.

Cube mapping a video sounds plausible, this is commonly known as 360° video. Putting the camera on rails (though I don't really notice rails in this case) and tying the video playback speed to the speed of the rail movement has also been done in the past in some pre-rendered PlayStation games, though without cube mapping. But I think it's not pre-rendered in this case. It looks far too realistic for a game that is at least 17 years old. My best guess: they captured the 360 degree videos with a real camera (stabilized in some way) and edited the equipment out frame by frame.

I actually do this whenever I add a youtube channel, but some shorts still sneak through. Just as a warning to whoever tries it themselves.

An example give by donho is "SomeProject : a macOS port of Notepad++" so it seems like the name can be used which will make it appear in searches. It just has to be clearly something else.

I think that's still trademark infringement.

You can tell people what something is, that is nominative use of the trademark. Actually putting it in center of the branding might be infringing, but Don Ho gave their blessing to use that, so that point is moot anyways.

The only place I see that is from a user "LiEnby" not "aletik", and none of aletik's existing messages are edited. All replies I see with the message are also to LiEnby. I don't agree with aletik's slow response in any way, but I don't think your claim is correct either. Do you have anything to prove that this was said by aletik?

If that’s the case good catch. I had the whole conversation unhidden and it was riddled with odd quotes. My bad for the misrepresentation. My conclusion still holds, fork author is a fool and is playing the slow game for no reason.

All good, and agreed the fork author is in the wrong here. I just like keeping the facts straight since that can inform better arguments and discussions.

Here is a video that I actually just watched recently on that exact thing.

https://youtu.be/jfLAaGtNc7U

I get:

The uploader has not made this video available in your country

:( didn’t know that this was a thing

Neither did I, feel free to email me or message me on discord and I can try to download the video and send it to you.

I've been interested in doing something similar in the past, but I could really never solve issues like domain squatting and stopping individuals from claiming every name possible. Do you have a place where you keep these plans or have discussions around it? Or even just a place where I could get updates if anything does come of it?

> I've been interested in doing something similar in the past, but I could really never solve issues like domain squatting and stopping individuals from claiming every name possible

I think that's just a property of a naming system. Without something like a centralized threat of force that can know every person participating in the system - there really is no recourse. The approach we are taking is making it difficult to create a speculative market around names which seems to be the driving force behind squatters.

Happy to discuss it in more detail: hackernews@sepositus.com

(Note: that's an alias that goes to my email address which I avoid putting in public places for obvious reasons).

As someone from the US I would suggest viewing both as adversarial. I don't really trust my own government, but if I was born abroad I would trust them even less.

He's avoiding LLVM which is a compiler framework. Not LLMs as has been stated a few times in the comments already.

Ah I see now.

That being said - much hate detected

I'm not even sure a 32 wide array would be good either since on AMD warps are 64 wide. I wouldn't go fully towards auto vectorization with though.

Warp SIMD-width should be a build-time constant. You'd be using a variable-length vector-like interface that gets compiled down to a specified length as part of building the code.

Now that I could agree with, the only place where hiccups have started to occur are with wave intrinsics where you can share data between thread in a wave without halting execution. I'm not sure disallowing it would be the best idea as it cuts out possible optimizations, but outright allowing it without the user knowing the number of lanes can cause it's own problems. My job is the fun time of fixing issues in other peoples code related to all of this. I have no stakes in rust though, I'd rather write a custom spirv compiler.

A compile time constant can still be surfaced to the user though. The code would simply be written to take the actual value into account and this would be reflected during the build.