4 ms·

Thanks for your followup thoughts. Pleased the conversation has evolved to focus on architecture and performance rather than naming alone. re: GitHub comment d

by rocauc 6y ago

Thanks for your followup thoughts. Pleased the conversation has evolved to focus on architecture and performance rather than naming alone. re: GitHub comment deletion - We determined we should engage when we have easier to reproduce results, so we moved quickly to share them. That's what this post and diligence is, and I've re-engaged on the issues thread in question [1] with fuller remarks + reproducible Colab notebooks. [1] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920#issuecomment-643287337 https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920#issuecomment...

bArray 6y ago
> Thanks for your followup thoughts. Pleased the > conversation has evolved to focus on architecture and > performance rather than naming alone. Agreed. Maybe it wasn't so clear originally, but part of the naming issue came from the point that a fair comparison hadn't been made with the "previous" model. > re: GitHub comment deletion This was referring to the comments in the GitHub issues of Ultralytics. But in any case, benefit of the doubt is given. Some people doubted their association with the project and the comments are now gone - so let's see.