2021 AoC comparison shows BQN has very few icache misses on AoC-style code as well

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/implementation/kclaims.md b/implementation/kclaims.md
index c8a2debd..e7e946b1 100644
--- a/implementation/kclaims.md
+++ b/implementation/kclaims.md
@@ -134,4 +134,4 @@ For comparison, here's [ngn/k](https://codeberg.org/ngn/k) (which does aim for a
 
            1.245378356 seconds time elapsed
 
-The stalls are less than 1% here, so maybe the smaller executable is paying off in some way. I can't be sure, because the programs being run are very different: `19.k` is 10 lines while the others are hundreds of lines long. But I don't have a longer K program handy to test with (and you could always argue the result doesn't apply to Whitney's K anyway). Again, it doesn't matter much: the point is that the absolute most the other interpreters could gain from being more L1-friendly is about 10% on those fairly representative programs.
+The stalls are less than 1% here, but it seems this is largely due to the different nature of the program: `19.k` is 10 lines while the others are hundreds of lines long. Now that [Advent of Code](../community/aoc.md) 2021 has run, dzaima points out that his solutions are comparable in intent to ngn's, and I measure very close to 0.5% icache stalls in both (27 of 5,404 million cycles in BQN and 34 of 6,600 in ngn/k, problems 23 and 24 omitted). But I don't have a longer K program handy to test with, and you could always argue the result doesn't apply to Whitney's K. Again, it doesn't matter much: the point is that the absolute most the other interpreters could gain from being more L1-friendly is about 10% on those fairly representative programs.