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
No they didn't. You can see all the commits as this was built iteratively[0]. This project started development on Saturday morning and now it's here.
This is pretty common now, people love to rapidly throw together stuff and show it off a few days later. The only thing different about this from your average Show HN sloppa is that it's living under the NVIDIA Github org, though that also has 700+ repositories[1] in it so they don't appear too discerning about what makes it into the official repo.
My best guess is this was an internal hackathon project they wanted to release publicly.
it's the new norm that you put together stuff, it works and you show it off.
all the naysayers, "senior" engineers who haven't done any assisted coding by Claude/codex, just need to get either with the program or it's time to retire, as this is just the beginning.
if you can't ship stuff in days then I have some bad news for you.
> it's the new norm that you put together stuff, it works and you show it off.
You're probably right, but it'd be nice if the new norm were you put together stuff quickly using AI-assisted coding, you use it yourself and iterate on the product for a while as you discover things you dislike/features you want/etc, and then you share it with the world.
It seems like everyone wants to skip the second step. Most of the "Show HN" sloppa that gets built in a few days and shared here ends up abandoned immediately after.
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]
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.
Just let go of the notion that a 4 day github history necessarily means the project is only 4 days old. It's a ridiculous assumption to base an argument off of. It's extremely normal to have work in one, perhaps internal, repo which you then blast over to a public repo in one (or a few) big commits. There is zero reason for them to let you see their internal progress.
> It's extremely normal to have work in one, perhaps internal, repo which you then blast over to a public repo in one (or a few) big commits.
Did you even read the commit history? That is not what is happening here.
This is turning into a "don't believe your lying eyes" situation. Why are you people so desperate to pretend this wasn't written in a weekend?
> There is zero reason for them to let you see their internal progress.
Again, I ask you -- 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?
Okay, so there's overwhelming evidence that their public github history is accurate and Nemoclaw was written in a weekend, and the only reason to think it's not accurate is that... it's technically possible to edit git history, and also there's no reasonable explanation for why they would have edited git history they way they did.
So... yeah, draw your own conclusion I guess, whatever.
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
> Again, I ask you -- 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?
Answer this question or we're done here, thanks.
> Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public.
Source, other than you making it up?
> 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
Could you point to a specific commit you believe is a representation of an internal data transfer from a separate source control system which is not representative of work achievable within the time period represented by the differential between the commit time and the time of the prior commit?
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
> Here are some completely normal and plausible [reasons]. 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.
... it referenced internal servers and they want to scrub that for security reasons
... it might have had secrets embedded at some point because it was a quick and dirty proof-of-concept
... it could have had swear words in the code
... it had enormous binaries checked in at one point and they don't want the repo to be huge
... they don't want you to know the names of everyone that worked on it
... it's forked off other internal work that isn't public yet
There are so many reasons that the easiest thing to do is just snapshot it and have minimal public git history. Some places I've worked make it so publicly, there's one commit per release. Did NVidia do this? Well, they didn't collapse it down to a single commit, but we have no evidence that the commits we see were the actual internal development timeline.
Nothing more to discuss here, the commit history (and your lack of coherent responses beyond hypothetical "it's technically possible it COULD have happened this way") speak for themselves. Thanks for trying though.
edit: Wait, you don't "have buddies at NVidia" -- you literally work at NVidia. Weird that you tried to hide this information? No wonder you're so desperate to pretend this project is more than it actually is though, it must be embarrassing for you that your company didn't scrub git history properly before making this public!
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
edit: Removing, not productive to engage with this. pre-emptive apology to dang/tom if this gets cleaned up, most of this thread is not productive and I should not have continued responding much earlier.
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 :)
> 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
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"
If someone else is messing with my computer, it doesn't really matter if he claims that he only played games. They could have done what ever else and still opened the game at the end, this is just a way to make that process smoother.
Wanted to start tracking my net worth over weeks/years but wasn't impressed with my options being
1. Boring spreadsheet
2. Half cooked self hosted budgeting app
3. Pay X/month for third party budgeting app
Just wanted simple net worth tracking with a nice easy to use web app.
Maybe in the future i'll add some Plaid syncing of accounts but currently manual inputs for all accounts
reply