Update the post to the publish date.

posts/2026/11/01/qcncm865-mt7927-comparison/index.org

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ AI was not used for any part of this post. LLMs are a powerful tool that are rap
 
 * Conclusion
 
-The MT7929 is the clear winner in terms of raw performance (speed / latency) whereas the QCNCM865 used less power. Personally, I am going to stick with the MT7927 because I'm almost always plugged in, so the power usage difference isn't much of a concern, and I find the random latency spikes in the QCNCM865 concerning. If I used my laptop on battery more often, that 1-2 extra watts consumed by the MT7927 could have a meaningful impact on battery life.
+The MT7929 is the clear winner in terms of raw performance (speed / latency) whereas the QCNCM865 used less power. Personally, I am going to stick with the MT7927 because I'm almost always plugged in, so the power usage difference isn't much of a concern. If I used my laptop on battery more often, that 1-2 extra watts consumed by the MT7927 could have a meaningful impact on battery life.
 
 That being said, bluetooth support for the MT7927 is not yet upstreamed, so if you rely on bluetooth, you may want to either use the QCNCM865 or at least wait a bit before adopting the MT7927.
 
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ In the remaining tests, the MT7927 scores a faster transfer rate than the QCNCM8
 
 For this test, I ran =ping= to my router for 10 minutes to measure the latency.
 
-While both cards spent most of their time below 10ms, the QCNCM865 had some pings that went higher to 30ms and even over 100ms.
+While both cards spent most of their time below 10ms, the QCNCM865 had some pings that went higher to 30ms and even over 100ms. I do not know if these latency spikes indicate a problem or if they are a result of U-APSD working correctly.
 
 [[./files/graphs/latency.svg]]