Is there any reason to think that the benchmarks, once improved to more accurately capture what the Apple Silicon chips do, will show it performing worse than they do now?
'Cause if they're only likely to give better results later on, that just supports TFA's thesis even more...
I don't think showing misleading numbers supports anything. It's not like there were no benchmarks comparing Intel and M1. There were plenty of those and it's pretty easy to find them. So we should have a sense of what these "broken benchmarks" indicate.
Showing a flawed misleading comparison for every laptop that comes out is redundant and misleading regardless of the direction.
'Cause if they're only likely to give better results later on, that just supports TFA's thesis even more...