ClickBench is of very limited utility already because it doesn't have a single join in it. Which is maybe less weird in the context of ClickHouse not being great at joins.
For that to be the case, wouldn't that mean that companies are awful not in the name of money but just because they're evil? Which I thought was the antithesis of your whole thesis, so maybe I should read your book.
> And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500.
This should be kind of obvious -- if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is why the real solution is some kind of governance/regulation, because otherwise the market incentivizes being awful.
> The interesting thing here is the Undefined Behavior (UB), well... actually two UBs, thanks to which there are three possible correct answers: 11, 12 and 13.
No, if you invoke undefined behavior any result at all is possible.
"It's possible to write <lang-X> in <lang-Y>" is a common trope, but "It's possible to write <lang-X> in Rust" is painful and borderline impossible in my experience. I don't mean this as a defense of rust, I just think it's why the learning curve is so harsh.
Can you say more about the system? A lifetime ago I was really excited about gambit (and bigloo) but I never had the chance to work with them beyond messing around here and there after work.