Yeesh, until I saw your comment I thought this was Fabien. I'm sure it's not intentional but this goes beyond "homage" and into "deceptive". The replies to this claiming to not see what the issue is are inexplicable to me.

The work on the book itself looks fantastic, so it's a shame about the site design.

▲

sasas 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's often helpful not to immediately assume bad faith without further enquiry. It appears that Fabien had reviewed the book beforehand and he has reposted John Carmack's tweet[1] linking the book.

[1] https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/2066577536339923091

▲

wk_end 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I thought "I'm sure it's not intentional" would make it clear that I'm not assuming bad faith - actually the opposite, I'm assuming good faith.

	▲	sasas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Understood. It's reasonable to call out potential conflict while also being unclear on intention. Something as simple in the Keen book author acknowledging the proofreader would put to rest the ambiguity central to the discussion point in contention.