Comment by freedomben | Hacker News Reader

Comment by freedomben | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Justine Tunney appears to enjoy extreme superstar status here

This is true, and for sure pretty much all humans can benefit from increased skepticism (though not cynicism), but that superstar status is achieved from numerous impressive works. Cosmopolitan C and Actually Portable Executable were some of the things in the past that alone were worthy of significant respect, and for many people (like myself) these were our first introduction.

Speaking only for myself, I have a high opinion of Justine on technical merits. I'm sure she makes mistakes like all humans. I can tell she gets excited by discoveries and the chase, and that probably does sometimes cause premature celebration (this is something I struggle with so it's recognizable to me haha), but being wrong sometimes doesn't erase when you're right, and she has been spectacularly right a lot more times than most people I know.

There have been some personality clashes between Justine and others at times, and unfortunately it's situations where only part (sometimes a small part) of it was public, meaning we can only take people's word for what happened. Given my ignorance, I choose to withhold judgment here, but even if I didn't (and assumed she was guilty) it doesn't change the technical merits and it certainly wouldn't dissuade me from seeing what she's working on now.

So when I see stuff from Justine come out like this, it gets my attention. Would it get my attention if the same thing were posted by somebody whose name I don't recognize? Likely not, but I think that is (unfortunately) part of being a human. We aren't capable (yet!) of evaluating everything on technical merit alone because the shear volume of material far exceeds our time. Therefore we use other (less reliable to be true) signalling mechanisms as a way to quickly decide what is worthy of our time investment and what may not be. Reputation/name recognition is a much imperfect, but better than random chance, indicator.

I don't know, my first (and main) impression of them was actually in the context of the llama.cpp mmap story, as I was somewhat involved in the project back then, and there I thought their impact on the project was predominantly negative. While they introduced a mildly beneficial change (mmap-based model loading), the way in which this was done was not healthy for the project - the changes were rammed through with little regard for concerns that existed at the time about backwards compatibility and edge cases that might be broken by the half-baked patch, Justine came across as self-aggrandizing (in the sense of "acting as if they ran the place", presenting their proposals as a plan that others must follow rather than suggestions) and overly eager to claim credit (epitomized by the injection of their own initials into the magic number file format identifier next to those of the project originator's, and the story of the hapless other author of the mmap changeset who was at first given a token acknowledgement but then quickly sidelined). Arguments for the inclusion of the patch seemed to be won by a combination of half- and untruths like those about memory savings and the sudden participation of a large number of previously uninvolved sycophants. It is fortunate that Georgi handled the fallout as well as he did, and that he in fact had amassed the social capital necessary to survive his heavy-handed solution (soft-banning both JT and their most prominent detractor). A less-successful project would probably have found itself captured or torn apart by the drama.

There is nothing wrong with holding people in esteem for their achievements, but in this case the degree of esteem really seems to be excessive. This is not a matter of simply being annoyed that people like "the wrong thing" - the mmap situation was significantly exacerbated by the presence of irrational/excessive supporters of Justine's as well as the irrational/excessive detractors that emerge wherever the former exist.

I would like to know more about the mmap situation, as what I saw on the surface could warrant some concern. Being somewhat involved you would probably know better than I as I was just an observer reading the thread after-the-fact. It seemed like the biggest accusation was the plagiarism (or "collaborating" but mostly taking somebody else's code).

Did anybody besides the two parties see the code develop, or does anybody else have knowledge of this? Or is it just his word vs. hers? Do you have any suggested reading to get more perspective other than just the github thread and HN thread? (really asking. these aren't rhetorical questions)

Reading the thread, I do think there are a lot of opportunities to read in confirmation bias. For example if I start reading that thread with the idea that Justine is coming in to hijack the project and make herself the hero that it needs and deserves, and to get her initials embedded in there as a permanent tribute to her own glory, I can see that. But if I read it as her coming in with cool work that she's excited about, and had to come up with a new format and couldn't think of a name (naming things can be really hard) and just stuck in one of the first things that came to mind (or even used as a placeholder prior to discussion), I can see that as well.

I absolutely don't want the truth covered up, but I also don't want to accept as true things that aren't true, especially where the implications are toward somebody's character. I'm a big "benefit of the doubt" kind of person.

My sense is that the part about credit/collaboration was actually somewhat overblown among the detractors. What roughly happened as far as I can remember is that JT and another person worked on mmap together with about equal contribution, though the other person might have been the one to have initiated the idea (and solicited help to push it through); then at some point JT decided to make a PR to the main repository in their own name, but crediting the other collaborator as a coauthor, which may or may not have been coordinated with the other person. After that, though, in a fairly characteristic fashion, JT started fielding adulatory questions from their fans (on Github, but also on HN, Twitter and possibly other media) about the change, and quickly switched to simply referring to it as their own, with no mention of the other contributor. The other contributor expressed some misgivings about having their contribution erased, which were picked up by a growing set of people who were generally resentful about JT's conduct in the project. As far as I can tell, when confronted about it, JT at no point explicitly denied what the other person did (and I think the commit logs should all still be there in the fork), but at some point the other person just decided to stop pushing the issue due to being uncomfortable with becoming a playing ball in the fandom war between JT fans and antis.

My personal main gripe with JT really was the tone they adopted in the Github discussions, and the effect of the large numbers of drive-by supporters, who were often far less restrained in both unfounded claims about Justine's accomplishments and attacks on any critics. (At this point I'd also like to note that I consider some sibling comments to be uncomfortably hostile in a personal way, like the "hit piece" one.) I think that as a public persona, especially one who actively pursues publicity, you have some responsibility to restrain your followers - Justine, I get the sense, instead uses them as deniable proxies, as also seen with the instances where instead of straight up putting their signature on the "RAM usage reduced to 6GB" claim they instead choose to post a collage of screenshots of supporters making it.

This could all be true, but it's hard to evaluate these claims on their own. Not being involved in any way, all I can do is conclude that there is some friction in that community. It's possible that JT is toxic, it's possible that you are toxic, it's possible that neither of you is generally toxic but something about your personalities causes your interactions to become toxic, it's even possible that neither of you were toxic in any way but your impression of things after the fact is as-if Tunney had been toxic. Sometimes one has to stop and think about these things and figure out how to smooth things over, and sometimes it's not possible to smooth things over.

I didn't have any direct interactions with JT then or now - while it was hard to ignore the discussion as an onlooker, it did not touch upon any parts of the code that I was involved with. This seems to be one of the topics where everyone who is even tangentially involved is under a default suspicion of being biased in one direction or another.

>This is true, and for sure pretty much all humans can benefit from increased skepticism (though not cynicism), but that superstar status is achieved from numerous impressive works.

It is achieved through a never ending parade of self aggrandizement.

What Justine is very good at is presenting trivial concepts from a world which few front end developers understand in a language that most front end developers understand.

I had the misfortune of having to find out about her because of how thoroughly she polluted the google search space for lisp with her implementation of sector lisp. For some reason google decided that sector lisp needed to be in the top 5 results for every query about `minimal lisp with quotation` even when quotation wasn't implemented in her version.

> presenting trivial concepts from a world which few front end developers understand in a language that most front end developers understand

Completely ignoring the JT discussion, the argument that something is trivial in some area does not really hold. 1) Science is mostly "just" connecting the dots, and 2) landmark discoveries tend to look trivial in hindsight almost by definition, because they have to be straightforward enough to be widely adopted.

I am also quite impressed by Tunney’s technical chops—Cosmopolitan C blew my mind— but, as with others, am somewhat put off by the self-aggrandizing self-satisfied tone and I-know-best attitude that are always on display. Maybe it’s a cultural, generational, or age thing? My younger coworkers tended to sound like this, and tended to minimize others’ contributions, which seems to be the case with the mmap() situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com