Your comment shows that you've missed the point. You're assuming that because I'm doing this kind of micro-optimisation that is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant, that I'm concentrating on the wrong thing.
You say:
> the conclusion bases itself on silly 0.1 which plays no sensible role at all.
You've missed the point. This specific code change is not the point for the task overall. This specific code change was preparation for a significant algorithmic shift that was about to happen. On the way I happened to notice something odd, and I thought people would be mildly curious, so I wrote it down for people to see.
Please don't assume that I'm clueless about the wider picture.
You say:
> the conclusion bases itself on silly 0.1 which plays no sensible role at all.
You've missed the point. This specific code change is not the point for the task overall. This specific code change was preparation for a significant algorithmic shift that was about to happen. On the way I happened to notice something odd, and I thought people would be mildly curious, so I wrote it down for people to see.
Please don't assume that I'm clueless about the wider picture.