All these comments about how code review is a waste of time, or suggest code review is only for bugs, really shine light on why so much software is incredibly slow today.
None of them engage with the content of the article either - having a "play next" button for code review is awesome assuming it works reasonably well. I'm curious about the quality of nudgebot reviews. In my experience the PRs that sit around forever are the 3000 line epic find/replace refactors all done in one commit that are impossible to really review. I skimmed the paper and didn't see any accounting for "diff time to diff length", so I'm not sure the result there is anything meaningful. Maybe people are getting faster feedback to not submit such shitty PRs.
Maybe people'd have more time to optimise the performance of their software if they weren't spinning their wheels and context switching waiting hours for minor changes to be merged.