"Here's how folks in the community have been reacting to my work."
"I just wrote a change that's going to let your LLaMA models load instantly..."
"I'm the author"
"Author here..."
"Tragedy of the commons...We're talking to a group of people who live inside scientific papers and jupyer notebooks."
"My change helps inference go faster."
"The point of my change..."
"I stated my change offered a 2x improvement in memory usage."
"I can only take credit for a 2x recrease in RAM usage."
"I just wrote a change that's going to let your LLaMA models load instantly, thanks to custom malloc() and the power of mmap()"
jart was working on a malloc() approach that didn't work and slaren wrote all the code actually doing mmap, which jart then rebased in a random new PR, changed to support an unnecessary version change, magic numbers, a conversion tool, and WIN32 support when that was already working in the draft PR. https://archive.ph/Uva8c
This was 2 weeks prior to @slaren's contribution (https://github.com/slaren/llama.cpp/commit/fc685122f95f212d1...) on March 29th, so in a sense, it's quite possible that what you've just shown is that @slaren saw that @jart was working on mmap support, worked out a cleaner solution and then wasn't happy with only being a co-author -- for their contribution, they believed that they must be the only person mentioned on the PR.
I don't think saying "my changes" on Twitter and other social media means what you suggest it does as is it is just informal speech to refer to things you've worked on with "my", and particularly when you see the times this was expanded (e.g. "yesterday my changes to the LLaMA C++ file format were approved") it seems more reasonable than it does without this context.
In fact, if you read the thread you linked to, you'll see this for yourself too, no reentry required. There's nothing actually objectionable or "repulsive," as jart put it, in that renetry, with an exception of the "r word" being applied to a proposed technical solution.
Your interpretation is incompatible with what we see and the clear timeline. The social media bragging, the second PR, etc., are further evidence. I hope whatever anger you had going into this has abated to the point where you can now actually judge the evidence.
However, I won't respond to you here, since (1) it should be quite clear that I think @slaren wasn't given enough recognition for their work from my prior comments and that there is a more positive approach you could have taken to helping to give them this, and (2) the rest of what you said about ethics is subjective, and I think wrong in magnitude -- for example, I'm not sure it's correct to call it "plagiarism" when @jart's PR mentioned the collaboration with @slaren, used co-authored commits and linked to their PR.