I know. I don't understand why you think I have a problem with the site's honesty. It's a poor benchmark suite, and it admits it is. We're in agreement.
> Here's something that could reasonably make those claims
I'm not familiar with this paper, but you seem to think I was complaining about false claims, which I wasn't. Benchmarks are problematic these days because results no longer generalise as they did a couple of decades ago, but some benchmarks are of higher quality than others (again, I'm not talking about what they say they are but about what they actually are) by at least covering a wider and possibly more relevant set of use cases, and by offering comparisons that are less confusing.
I know. I don't understand why you think I have a problem with the site's honesty. It's a poor benchmark suite, and it admits it is. We're in agreement.
> Here's something that could reasonably make those claims
I'm not familiar with this paper, but you seem to think I was complaining about false claims, which I wasn't. Benchmarks are problematic these days because results no longer generalise as they did a couple of decades ago, but some benchmarks are of higher quality than others (again, I'm not talking about what they say they are but about what they actually are) by at least covering a wider and possibly more relevant set of use cases, and by offering comparisons that are less confusing.