Thank you for responding. With the new footnote [1], I now believe the attribution is sufficient. I've added a link to it, as well as to your response, as an update to my blog post.
> Update: Nick G. from Anthropic has responded on Hacker News, and sufficient attribution has been added to Anthropic’s blog post. I stand by my posts as of the time I wrote them.
This is such a weird turn of phrase. You _stand_ by your posts, implying that you currently stand by them, but then add "as of the time" that you wrote them, implying that you no longer stand by them? Either you stand by your posts or you don't; you can't have it both ways. It's just a little confusing.
So you are claiming that if someone says “it’s raining” while there is precipitation, and then it stops, they can say it is “no longer raining” but aren’t allowed to believe it was raining before?
Milking this fake drama for all it's worth huh? Good to know you, the authority on the subject, believe it's sufficient now.
As if attributing Sapling didn't include its server, Mononoke. What's next, an author of some sub-module of Mononoke will be "outraged" he didn't get personally attributed?
This is all just your ego speaking. Good job taking advantage of the "anthropic bad" undercurrent, I guess?
[1] https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/redesigning-source-con...