|
|
|
|
|
|
by BeeOnRope
2390 days ago
|
|
|
I feel like you are intentionally being thick in order to get mad at me. I am only talking specifically about the 2/3 claim at the bottom of the article, which for the avoidance of doubt, is simply a summary of the final measurement made in the article, i.e., the result of dividing 1.4 by 2.1. I know this because of its positioning in the article, because the numbers line up, because a different % IPC is given for the earlier measurement, and because an earlier version of post, with different results for the last experiment (with IPC of 2.8 and 1.4), showed a different ratio (50%). How you are somehow interpreting the small clarification of the one line which was being discussion as wide-ranging defense of the article, I'm not sure. My broader thoughts are available here [1] and the comments on the article. --- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21724780 |
|
|