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.
If anything it's coherent with the fact that they very likely didn't have data earlier than January the 8th.
reply
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.