Yesterday, someone posted a task runner claimed to be 39x faster than Turborepo. I got really excited, thinking they found some edge case in Turborepo and that I could make something way faster. I open the benchmark repo, and its just straight up, flat out incorrect. Like, not even sorta useful. Not only was it not measuring the task runner parts of the script, it was overfit to a highly specific, completely unrealistic workload. 💀 The entire project is obviously Opus 5.5 vibe coded and Opus cheated the goal. Easy to miss if you're not experienced in build systems. Forgivable! So, I open a PR to show that the algorithm being used can also make scheduling slower, by any arbitrary factor, with only a tiny adjustment. I chose 100x slower than Turborepo for demonstrative purposes. The author fixed some of the problems but there are still grave issues. They're still comparing on an overfit bench that doesn't hold up when you insert the slightest variable, and *insisting* that its right. It is very obviously incorrect, but oh, well. After revision, Turborepo is only 1.36x slower. Down from 39x, but a more realistic number nonetheless. So I figure: "Great! There must be something I can learn to make Turborepo faster." I go digging, and it turns out the other tool is only faster still because it has correctness bugs. Once they correct those, they'll be roughly on par with Turborepo. On top of that, the numbers they post now report with a mix of "% faster" and "✗ faster", using "% faster" whenever the difference isn't big enough to make their tool look good. 1.36x gets turned into "36%", which looks like more than it is to a casual observer. This is a story of how I thought I was going to speed up Turborepo by 39x, and got nothing out of it. I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed. 😄