> That's not what it says [...]
That claim was retracted a while ago already on the original version; the syndicated copy on the crl web site will be updated at some point.
That claim was retracted a while ago already on the original version; the syndicated copy on the crl web site will be updated at some point.
This is also a trick peddlers of pseudoscience pull by the way. Honestly, you're coming off even worse now and this is reflecting pretty badly on all of CockroachDB to be honest. I don't know what your relationship with CockroachDB is exactly (if any), but it's on their website, and it's not a good look. If I was a manager there then I'd back-pedal, unpublish the entire thing, and issue an apology.
The article linked in this thread is a syndicated copy of an original article published elsewhere, as clearly stated by the attribution section at the bottom. It's reasonable to expect that changes to the original will only be updated in the copy with a delay.
But whatever, this is pointless. Russ was right and it's hard to take any of this in good faith. It feels like you're going to great lengths to avoid saying "oops, I was wrong".
I wrote this because there was no mention of "waste" anywhere in OP.