Two possible paths lead to their cheating code getting into a release. Either it was added by coding agent and no one looked at it, bad, but worse would be that a person was aware of it and approved - that's malicious.
Either way you don't want to be platforming the product because neither shows any degree of responsibility.
That comment doesn't evidence cheating, it reiterates that they submitted the result prematurely which was already admitted in the comment that your link was responding to.
EDIT: removed a lament that people don’t read comments they respond to, in case this violates the site rules.
So, the charge was that they submitted a build specifically tuned for clickbench
The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else...
Doesn't feel like much of a defense to me. At best it's benchmaxxing if not clear outright cheating
> The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else.
ClickBench tests a very narrow set of SQL: scans, aggregations, sorts, and filters. It ends up being a great starting point for building a query engine before layering in more functionality
> The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else...
According to both the ClickHouse founder who was levying the accusations and the pgrust creator, the submission worked for many other queries it just didn’t have full SQL support.
Whenever people benchmark something my default assumption is that they want to know how well it performs, but I’m not the author and can’t speak to their intentions.
I think it is reasonable, if apparently incorrect, for people to assume that your account is a throwaway account, given its name. I'm surprised that you're surprised by this.
Account names are just unique strings within a set of allowed characters. I could make my handle “TheKingOfEngland”, but it wouldn’t actually make me English royalty. I thought in a community of programmers this would be self-evident, but alas not.
I’m not sure if they’re equally reasonable, but inferring something from a username is at least as foolish as making inferences based on account age. The critical distinction, however, is that my account age remark was tongue in cheek while you joined the fray to defend drawing conclusions from a username.
> inferring something from a username is at least as foolish as making inferences based on account age.
That's just not so, friend.
Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts, it's reasonable to assume any account fitting the pattern is such an account, because odds are astronomically high that it is. This has to do with something called convention, and I'd suggest reading more on that topic and how it can affect inferences.
Whereas, there is no indicator about how any account may tie to the experience of the person posting behind the account. It's as useless a metric as account name itself for trying to gauge that, and honestly, that should be obvious.
> is that my account age remark was tongue in cheek while you joined the fray to defend drawing conclusions from a username.
You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.
I merely corrected you when you tried to say it wasn't reasonable for people to assume an account named such as yours is a throwaway, because it very, very much is.
> Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts
Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.
> You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.
I’m the authority on my own emotional state, but also as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek, but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit :shrug:
I'm not, I think you're ego is preventing you from admitting you said something silly, however.
> Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.
It's not fabricated in the least.
> I’m the authority on my own emotional state
Sure, that doesn't mean what you claim is honest however. Plenty of people would claim to be joking when they were anything but, for all sorts of reasons.
> as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek
Native English speaker here also, and I can assure you that your dialogue thus far also comports perfectly with someone who was not speaking tongue in cheek, but asserted they were so they could hopefully put an end to a conversation that was started by calling them out for something silly.
> but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit
Funny, that's what I'm watching here. It's a hobby of mine to recognize people who can't admit when they are wrong and need to have the last word, taking it to an extreme level. There isn't much more to be gained from this conversation since you refuse to be reasonable and acknowledge longstanding convention regarding the naming of throwaway accounts, but I am curious how much longer you will drag it out.
My reply addressed specific, factual errors (e.g., your fabricated statistic, your baseless speculation about my motives, etc). There was no ad hominem.
You joke but when benchmarking with ai this is important. When you tell it optimize X, it will do so at any cost, including cheezing benchmarks. So you have to make sure you tell it what it can’t optimize along with what it can.
I downloaded a copy of a movie I had previously purchased yesterday. Claude helped me remux it so I could play it on my TV. Will the FBI be knocking on my door tomorrow?
I’d love to know how much Google has made from accidental clicks since it started. I used to see my mum make a couple of mistaken clicks here and there on her computer; now on mobile it’s easily 10x worse. Sometimes because she doesn’t realize they’re ads, other times she tries to tap the X and it opens… It’s insane
Good post, thanks for sharing. I discovered CH around 2018, and I knew it would change the analytics space. I spent countless hours studying it on my own and promoting it at work (when it made sense). I also tried to land a job at companies using it, but nothing happened :(.
I still check the monthly changelog, even though I do quite different things at work these days.
