This is incorrect. The claim is that the bytes are either non-accounted, or motivated by technical choices specific to Go.

> What you're doing here is pretty much the same trick quacks [...]

Look the article has some measurements with numbers which you can readily reproduce on your own computer, and the methodology is even described. The main claim is that "it's unclear what these bytes are about". The previous claim that they were "non-useful" was retracted. The data is there, and there's a question: "What is this data about?"

The text is even doubling down by spelling out "there's no satisfying explanation yet".

> outright disbelieving people like this is rather rude

We're not in the business of "believing" or "disbelieving" here I think? There's data, there's measurements, and there are explanations.

After my comments and that of others, Russ provided a more elaborate, more detailed (and at last, falsifiable in the positive, epistemological sense of the word) explanation deeper in the thread. Now we can make the work of looking into it and check the explanation.

> your comment has the strong implication that Russ is outright lying

Your understanding is flawed then? There was no assumption of lies implied.