The main thing GPUI has going for it is mind share and that's a great thing to have. The mind share is unfortunately highly fragmented though as the original authors are not interested in selling a GUI library. Hopefully the community efforts will come together to produce a more polished and general library. A well used library is better than a better designed one maintained by a single person.

The whole piece seems like it originated when someone assumes the very specific scenarions and predictions the lesswrong crowd has as a forgone conclusion and tries to imagine the most "humane" version. This is preachy if you're one of the crowd because "rosy" and its preachy if you're not because "forgone conclusions". This annoying taste is compounded by the general lack of substance or style otherwise.

And it's boring because it focuses on the most obvious first order effects and visions of this technology directly copied from the lab blog posts.

I love reading dry scifi. They generally have one single idea worth the time contained within them so I won't hold that against it. It's just that the ideas here have these two major holes.

My SQLite code golf project when user 11 signs up

There's nothing wrong with chasing a little clout really but I was not surprised to hear Bun's engineering itself wasn't up to par. A single person was shipping not just a runtime but half the ecosystem/tooling justified by sketchy benchmarks? As someone very familiar with the effort it takes to ship solid code in Node and Deno and the ecosystem writ large, their early claims of performance and being production ready were very suspect and it was unfortunately proven false once it duped real projects into getting adoption.

Again, there's nothing wrong being overly ambitious and failing. But I dare anyone to refute that in Oven.sh and many other twitter first projects today (usually in the Js ecosystem), solid engineering and actual usefulness takes a backseat to being viral and being featured in some idiot's weekly roundup news segment.

If you're familiar with Kelley's and the Zig Foundation ethos, it's not surprising that there was internal clashes and drama with such a project.

As someone who's been following Sumner's work closely for years, Kelley's accusations are very much true even if unkind. While the results are useful and cool, it a wankfluencer op from start to finish. I dare you to refute thus.

And I say all this as someone who does agentic development 8hrs a day and someone who always pestered my team to opt for Rust and Deno instead of Node. Call a spade a spade, the rewrite was poorly justified and one in a long lines of successful psyops Dario and co. cooked and delivered.

Now, would Andrew's message have been better received if it had better "decorum"? Maybe. But I'm glad he stayed honest to himself instead and didn't have a PR team ghostwrite his thoughts. You have to appreciate that.

An anecdote I have: a friend once had narcotics shipped intl. through Session a few years ago.

Should science journalist hold themselves to a better, special standard? True. Especially with the age old war that's waged on it by those who hold power through selling incredibly unscientific world views. But I think the overt actions these forces are more to blame than poor science journalism. People don't like inconvenient facts, people will forever be victims to a voice making a problem go away by denying the problem even exists.