If you look at the query parameters of the Amazon links you can see that they are affiliate links. It might be more or less an honest review but they do earn money from it.

We’ve discovered the review that says the thing is bad, is actually an ad for the thing, because the buy link has an affiliate code.

Am I understanding you right?

I feel like we have stumbled into a classic HN tarpit, where people try justifying something obviously wrong by adding one observation and implying it can be twisted into one segment of the obviously wrong thing.

It’s a tarpit, because as soon as I point out this doesn’t change anything, you can either point out you were just observing or claim some other claim was what was being implied

I don't think magazines using affiliate links necessarily makes a review unbiased. Recommended or not, if someone buys it from them they may as well make a cut.

That said, many of these type of articles are just thinly veiled paid advertorials.

He is also the creator of the Altair visualization library (Vega-Lite in Python https://altair-viz.github.io/). I really like using it.

Thanks for the fact, I used Altair sometimes and really admire the simplicity, not knowing it was written by Jake.

I think they are referring to the fact that the zigbook maintainer defaced the PR that fixed the license issue by editing out the PR description.

Or deleting all the comments there.

Indeed: @zigbook changed the title "Fix license violations" "Im mad because you wrote code similiar to mine >:(" 3 minutes ago (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/43)

Wow. It's also an extremely reasonable pull request, here's the only commit: https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/compare/main...SuperAugus...

I could sort of understand it if the PR used all sorts of judgemental/accusatory language or something. But it doesn't; it's straight-forward and factual. Outright bizarre behaviour.

I really loved this PR, very fair, appropriate, sensible, proportionated; masterpiece! Could easily be used as example in all git commit writing guides around (half-joking).

help us, it's gone

Original commit: https://github.com/SuperAuguste/zigbook/commit/8cc9edd35b3e3...

At one point they added a “R******D COMPLAINT” (censored for HN) ticket sticker to… idk, oppose AI-use accusations? Somebody seemingly talked them down from it though. Just bizarre. Like watching a midlife crisis through GitHub issues.

My guess is it fails if you use a workspace account. I was able to use it with my personal Google account.

Hmm that does indeed seem to be the case.

On the pricing page it says that for public preview they are offering a free individual plan with "generous rate limits". I gave it an HTML file and asked it to create Jinja templates from it and 2 minutes later (still planning, no additional prompt) I got this:

> Model quota limit exceeded. You have reached the quota limit for this model.

I think the models are under high load right now, and not working properly.

So the error messaging is wrong, giving the user the impression it's their fault for not paying. I think that's worse..

It's both.

Free tier users get to use what's left over from Google's capacity. They pay with their data, Google uses their inputs for training.

Paid tier users pay with money, Google doesn't use their inputs. They get priority when capacity is running out (like right after a launch as happened here).

There is no paid tier on Antigravity currently.

> html

Would be willing to bet this is the issue. Adding html files to context for gemini models results in a ton of token use.

why?

EDIT: why must users care?

Gotta learn all the quirks of the model before it's replaced in 8 minutes.

Quirks? like context window?

I'm saying it's egregious to expect all users to know the fact that an HTML document, for some reason, uses an enormous amount of context in an LLM designed specifically for working with code.

It does also give the right solution, using an xml parser.

We don’t know the use case.

Maybe the questioner is also in full control of the HTML creation and they don’t need a parser for all possible HTML edge cases.

Maybe they are, but they would also need to ensure a well-defined subset of HTML and also show that the subset is a reglar (Chomsky Type 3) grammar.

It seems that even the very conceptually simple example given by the questioner is impossible.

I haven't used it myself but a few of my colleagues used it saying it is good and they completed a huge chunk of work with Antigravity, mind you I am very skeptical of this.

The don't seem to be getting any rate limiting issue which I don't understand, maybe a bug in Antigravity allowing them to use it for more. They are really confident in the IDE after a few hours and the output given is really good.

Jevons paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

It's the same problem with OpenRouter's free tiers for a long time. If something is truly $0 and widely available, people will absolutely bleed it dry.

Same here. I tried to build a super simple iOS App in antigravity and I was out of quota before it finished. The whole thing was a couple of files and a few hundred lines of code.

If you dismiss and respond something like "proceed" it resumes. Takes a fair while to actually run out of usage.

That'd be my experience with gemini cli.

I had pretty much the same experience.

What is the point of simulating 650GB data with ~40 columns if you are going to use a single column for testing? Is that even 16GB?

It's a strided array and slows down memory access.

It's a parquet file. Column data is stored in contiguous pages (and that's how duckdb and polars read them).

Okay, wasn't aware of that.

That's exactly the difference between using with or without license.

It's been over a year, and they still haven't provided any tangible examples to support their claims. The best they could come up with was something like "he used the wink emoji" I think. There have been hundreds of posts, and many community members have demanded either evidence to back up those accusations or a public apology to Tim and their removal. But of course, those people are racist, misogynist, or creeps so nothing came out of it.