3 ms·
The post you link to has edited it's previous findings. They now state that IE9 is certainly cheating on the sunspider. I hope you now realize it would've bee
by bjg 16y ago
The post you link to has edited it's previous findings.
They now state that IE9 is certainly cheating on the sunspider.
I hope you now realize it would've been wise to wait before passing judgment on lordgilman ( especially in a public forum )
- kenjackson 16y agoThe problem is the analysis to prove they are cheating is faulty. See my other post at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1914541 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1914541 Note, I'm not saying they're NOT cheating. I'm just saying that no one has yet provided strong evidence that they are.
- runjake 16y agoHe simply should've followed the HN guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and linked to the article and stuck to the original title.
- lordgilman 16y agoIf I may be pedantic for a moment, the HN guidelines only warn against "gratuitous editorial spin." I don't feel the changes were gratuitous at all because (if you look at the last sentence in the blog post) my title is clearly the point Mr. Sayrer is trying to make.
- runjake 16y agoThe changes were gratuitous. That's why the author didn't directly say "You're cheating". He wanted a direct answer while at the same time giving them the benefit of the doubt. But whatever, your mind is made up.