Just post your source. Benchmarks should be reproducible.

I think this is a great question to ask so I'll chip in with some more feedback. Feel free to skip if you didn't want a wall of text, I always try to throw in some thoughts when someone takes the time to ask for them so it sometimes ends up being more than they really cared for :). Of course, the guidelines also guide to not why you/others flag... though I think cases where the author is well meaning and involved in the comments it's ultimately a good thing and example of why they are "guidelines". After all, it's ultimately about fostering the "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" (admittedly a bit wishy-washy) bit at the top, not a complete list of hard and fast truths to bench things against.

A lot of people here are likely to consider things like "(in C btw)" being in the title at least distracting from that goal and at the most flamebait and editorialized. It's already distracting enough when "(in Rust)" or what have you is in the title and most of the comments end up being the same X vs Rust comments we've been reading for years instead of about this new thing but it's even more distracting when presented as a counter in that way.

Another factor that will likely rub a lot of folks the wrong way is it's (reductively) a post about how "X is bad so here's Y" but without all of the interesting bits that make Y tangible and engaging. Things like an interesting set of reproducible tests rather than at-word claims about one benchmark, comparisons of where Y fell short that allowed X to get such gains, and a single Y to focus on. On the latter in particular, is it a post detailing development of a new ultra fast key value store or is it a post trying to give examples of why modern complicated software is bad? It's a bit short of either as a result - the first is lacking enough data and clouded by the distraction of the second topic and the second being more a short take than something to engage with. Both topics are actually pretty interesting to think about, just neither as presented.

The final thing I'll bother to mention, and I this is definitely the least relevant IMO, is your submission history is heavily weighted towards posting your own content. You've even posted your same articles multiple times (at least spaced out a bit). I'm not saying you're necessarily abusing posting to the point of being against the rule about self promotion or anything of that nature but that combined with the average engagement should be a good hint how much things like (in C btw) gather and encourage the (wrong) kind of attention for discussion.

Overall I think you probably have an extremely interesting bit of software and the post is very close to being something that would be near the top of the front page. I honestly want to know so much more about it and see it go places if it's nearly as cool as it sounds it might be. I also don't want any of this to seem like a bored rule book read to screw you or anything like that, hopefully it's instead useful to you as the constructive feedback on what kind of content launches a solid discussion here.