Comment by littlestymaar 10 days ago Or maybe, juste maybe, that's when they started testing… 2 comments littlestymaar Reply eterm 10 days ago Wayback machine has nothing for this site before today, and article is "last updated Jan 29".A benchmark like this ought to start fresh from when it is published.I don't entirely doubt the degradation, but the choice of where they went back to feels a bit cherry-picked to demonstrate the value of the benchmark. littlestymaar 10 days ago Which makes sense, you gotta wait until you get enough data before you can communicate on the said data…If anything it's coherent with the fact that they very likely didn't have data earlier than January the 8th.
eterm 10 days ago Wayback machine has nothing for this site before today, and article is "last updated Jan 29".A benchmark like this ought to start fresh from when it is published.I don't entirely doubt the degradation, but the choice of where they went back to feels a bit cherry-picked to demonstrate the value of the benchmark. littlestymaar 10 days ago Which makes sense, you gotta wait until you get enough data before you can communicate on the said data…If anything it's coherent with the fact that they very likely didn't have data earlier than January the 8th.
littlestymaar 10 days ago Which makes sense, you gotta wait until you get enough data before you can communicate on the said data…If anything it's coherent with the fact that they very likely didn't have data earlier than January the 8th.
Wayback machine has nothing for this site before today, and article is "last updated Jan 29".
A benchmark like this ought to start fresh from when it is published.
I don't entirely doubt the degradation, but the choice of where they went back to feels a bit cherry-picked to demonstrate the value of the benchmark.
Which makes sense, you gotta wait until you get enough data before you can communicate on the said data…
If anything it's coherent with the fact that they very likely didn't have data earlier than January the 8th.