You answered nothing what I asked from you. I asked for links, measurements, graphs.
Your only arguments: after showing that I wrote "most need even 3 times more" then you give an example of one which needs 2 times more. Then you complain that "really slow" is fuzzy. Then you claim that "ideal situation rarely obtains in the real world."
My point is that you don't understand your own source. The "links, measurements, graphs" are in the paper you referenced, they just say something different from what you believe they are saying.
If you're struggling with understanding the paper, there's really nothing more I can do to help.
Apart from the claim that I use "fuzzy" words or that my set of "most GCs" unsurprisingly doesn't include the kind that Go still doesn't have and probably won't have for some years more, what have I written that you actually refuted?
Your only arguments: after showing that I wrote "most need even 3 times more" then you give an example of one which needs 2 times more. Then you complain that "really slow" is fuzzy. Then you claim that "ideal situation rarely obtains in the real world."
I asked you for the graphs and links.