chill_ai_guy

Probably a few years too late on this. Its for a time when humans still reviewed PR's. For better or worse, that is a thing of the past. The review step has shifted heavily left and newer re-imagination of Git (like Origin) will almost certainly not have a concept of a "PR" let alone stacking them

I think the marketing copy probably needs to focus on differentiating features vs any myriad of agent frameworks. I took one look at the sample and immediately said "This is literally just langgraph with a builder pattern"

This is quite funny

> Why are you people so desperate to pretend this wasn't written in a weekend?

Because it wasn't? And your only "proof" of it was commit history. "You're telling me to not believe my lying eyes" hilarious. You are being told again and again that it means nothing. It's not blockchain. You are allowed to write commits as you see fit without making it a system of record of time spent

> People with above room temp IQ can figure out what's going on here

Yes we can. We have one person convinced they can look at commit history and say for sure that is exactly when that code was written. No developer agrees with you. As you have been told a couple times by other people above as well

It's quite obvious you work at some small shop or are a freelancer and have never done work in any kind of big environment. No you cannot just open source a "weekend" project at any big company. Wherever you are you may be allowed to vibe code and ship something under your company's github willy nilly.

It's just not the reality in any serious place. No one is trying to deceive you. You have just deceived yourself. Thanks again for playing

You can have the last word you are so desperate for

Lol where did i make it sound like any of that? Just saw you confidently make the wrong claim and tried to socratic method you into understanding. You are sadly too far gone to understand

Good ad hominem. I'd be riled up too if i was publicly dressed down and proved to be wrong. So now you know, commit history doesn't mean jack sh!t. Sorry i had to ruin Christmas for you

> you guys wanted to make this look like it was written in a weekend though

Imagine thinking this was done to convince anyone about the TIME it took to write this project. Here's a very simple explanation, those commits reflect a PORT over to public Github to reflect launch. Author chose to do it in some number of commits instead of "feat: Full implementation in one commit". The port happened before their announcement. Not the write of it

Now I won't propose hypotheses because clearly the socratic method didn't work on you. So now sit down and learn how things work

And next time, try not to be so confidently wrong on the internet. I had a very good laugh watching you twist and turn yourself. Must have been typing furiously thinking you really were in the right :)

Ding ding ding. See it would have been too easy to just say "i know for a fact". I just wanted to walk you to the conclusion. Congrats.

Now you are more enlightened about how things work. Of course Nvidia is a big company not everyone that works at nvidia knows everything about every team. That's by design. Welcome to working at a big company! I do have buddies that worked on this project internally and yes it was done over many weeks and months

Thanks for playing. I do know for a fact it's definitely not what you think it is but i had a chuckle watching you twist yourself in a knot trying to convince me you knew better. Why would i disclose information about myself? odd thing to expect from someone. But had you riled up enough to have you go looking through my comment history then my github then my website huh! Must have really struck a nerve. Don't worry i won't do the same to you. I don't care about random people yapping on the internet enough

Nice job proving you can't read either. I answered everything. Gave you some critical thinking homework and you didn't do it. Great job

"It's true because commit history says so" - mjr00 2026. Hall of fame comment really

Try answering my questions next:

1. Do you really believe a company like Nvidia would announce a project in their yearly conference when that project was done the weekend before?

2. Do you really believe ONE engineer wrote the entire project in one weekend with Claude

3. Do you really believe companies like Nvidia don't have internal private Github/Gitlab repos where they don't pre build projects like this?

Thanks. I'll wait. Sorry these won't have simple answers like "The commit history says so"

You cannot really be this naive but i'll play along:

> what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not?

Like i said. You are letting on that you have never actually worked on an internal project that is going to go open source. There are a million and one reasons. Here are some completely normal and plausible ones. It was worked on over weeks internally, commits referenced other internal NVIDIA software/libraries they used. It name dropped projects and code names. Maybe it was just an extremely long chain of messy commits that is improper to have on a potentially big open source repo. So here's what happens (since you clearly are unaware of how people operate in this world), you "unstage" everything and write canonical commits free of all the garbage. You squash, you merge, you set up standards, you leave a clean commit history. All of it very important for open source

> Source, other than you making it up?

Ah yes let me just go ping the people who worked on it. Lol. Source is my decade long experience working on similar projects where i literally did this scrubbing of commits. You have a circuitous argument "It was done in a weekend because the commits say so" is really quite the hill to die on

> Could you point to a specific commit you believe is a representation of an internal data transfer

If there was any indication left over of a "transfer", it wouldn't have done it's purpose would it? But if you really are looking for something, how about the fact that there's only one human contributor of the first few commits. Very odd, you would think a massive open sourcing of a project like this would probably involve a team right? Or do you believe AI tools have gotten that good that one engineer is just driving with Claude and open sourcing full launches?

Here, how about we just do some critical thinking. Nvidia setup a "Set up NemoClaw" booth at their GTC that was happening just a few days ago. Jensen had a full presentation for it and it was a big highlight.

Do you really think a company as big as Nvidia is hinging the release of a big announcement on the hope that ONE engineer is going to START working on it a few days before the announcement and ACTUALLY get it done to a point where they can talk about it on stage?

Please come on, no one can be this dense. You have to be trolling. Try another argument than "The commits say so". Just apply a basic level of understanding of how software is built and released

Lmfao. This is how I know you have never worked at a big company before. I promise you every big company has processes around open sourcing things. It's not something that just whip up and release over a weekend. Just the legal approval would have taken months

I have buddies at Nvidia. Their primary platform is not GitHub. Sorry you're so naive. Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public

Not to mention the fact that Jensen literally announced it in their biggest yearly launch conference. No you're totally right. He mandated someone build it over the weekend while drafting up a full presentation and launch announcement about it

That's more plausible than the very normal practice of developing internally, scrubbing commits of any accidental whoopsies, vetting it and then putting it out publicly

"Overwhelming evidence" = git history that is completely fungible. Once you're done here I have a lobster claw to sell you

It's quite sad you are riding the coattails of Openclaw here and on Twitter. You only talk about how you were "first" but never say why you are arguably nowhere near all the competitors in terms of distribution that supposedly copied from you

Lol you think these github repos just materialize as is? They probably did all the iteration and development internally and then ported it over to a github repo and made it public afterwards

The Git command is whatever, pretty basic and stuff i have done forever but i am glad i clicked because ended up going down the rabbithole of the Wikileaks it was sourced from

Some unhinged stuff there. Like the CIA having a project called "Fine Dining" which was basically a catalog of apps that could be put on a USB drive to hide malicious code.

A case officer picks a cover app from a list of 24: VLC, Chrome, Notepad++, 2048, Breakout. Plug in the USB. Cover app opens. Exfiltration runs silently behind it. Target walks back in and the officer can just say "oh was just playing some games on this machine"