… because surely nobody would check.

If offering the same flexibility to everybody is viable: yes. sure. don’t restrict people just for shits and giggles.

But some businesses need people to be available at all times, and those businesses can handle letting some of their staff take time off on short notice or work during very specific hours only, but they can not handle giving the same consideration to everybody.

In those cases, preferential treatment for those who need it most is the right choice imo.

(Just abolishing work is, at this point in time, not viable.)

I assume the term “bitch” got blocked because in one context, it is a sexist insult.

The thing is, it wasn’t used in that context here.

So to me, this is at least spiritually adjacent to the Scunthorpe problem.

Everybody can run a Lemmy server. That includes people who do not know the Scunthorpe problem.

I can say “bitch” just fine btw

psst… you can just buy peppermint

“Is it in a serious, reliable publication” is indeed a good first question to ask yourself when trying to determine if something is scientific information or just some rando’s personal opinion.

I know, right?

The window seat is the singer from Limp Bizkit, who I am told is actually a pretty pleasant person IRL

The article cited by The Register cites this more detailed analysis in turn: https://blog.katanaquant.com/p/your-llm-doesnt-write-correct-code

Performance of the AI-generated version was 20,000 times slower on one specific benchmark, but “only” about 2,000 times slower when averaging over multiple different benchmarks (which is, imo, a better measurement of the code’s quality).

So I suppose The Register pulled from multiple sources (as you should) and just linked to the most top-level of all of them.