I had the same reaction at first, then noticed that they discuss this: the reason why they told that is because it is standard system prompt injected by most coding agent harnesses like Cursor and all, so it seems like a fair test setup.

It saddens me to see this flagged, I did not have any predefined opinion about the author or the medium, but I did enjoy reading a text with a bit of character - which is becoming rare in these times of LLM omnipresence. And whether we like the form or not, this is an opinionated piece like many others we see on HN, with a thesis that I find pretty relevant. Beyond saddened, I am actually worried to see the HN community dismiss this type of post rather than discussing it like others.

This figure is sort of an overclaim imho. If you look inside the paper, the reported figure is 97 FPS actually (vs 135 FPS for 3DGS on their device). This 2400FPS they advertise is for a degraded version that completely ignores the transparency... but the transprency is both what makes these representation support interesting volumetric effects and what makes rendering challenging (because it requires sorting things). Drawing 1M triangles at 2400FPS on their hardware is probably just quite normal.