It sounds like you're arguing against modularizing which is an unusual stance. Especially for a million line codebase.

This is what we've been doing for years before LLMs. Hiring a ton of devs to spit out code, which became another's burden. It just took longer and cost more.

I think the first one is the whole story anyway.

If we don't want idiots to do idiotic things we probably shouldn't make it possible/legal in the first place. But the corruption and malfeasance goes way beyond Trump so here we are.

If you implement AI code review suggestions then you're using AI code, just the hard way.

Also I don't see why your clients would be ok with having AI review and influence your code. Seems hypocritical, or like you're trying to cheat them.

LLMs are great at this. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't possible to improve the actionable notes.

Most human-made doctor notes I've seen have not been comprehensive, anyway, and the doctor has had to spend a good chunk of a rushed appointment scribbling notes rather than interacting with the patient.

You don't blindly follow it, and you also don't order a DNA test of the person that made it. You look at the output to include supporting evidence.

And you have a process for appeals.

That's distasteful.

Your worst complaint has nothing to do with the overall content or accuracy of the post.

Just style bashing.

Always thought that was interesting, because if the lies weren't exposed the readers would have remained inspired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces

But IME all of the other things are the hard part.

So basically it's fine to get the LLM to think for you and give you the answers as long as you understand Rust syntax well enough to type it all out yourself?

This also seems like it will produce worse code, because it's preventing the LLM from doing the easy/boring part that it's good at.

Your advisor doesn't have any fancy computer with more info than you have. You're paying for an illusion and it's not cheap:

A 1% annual fee reduces your wealth by 20-25% over a 30 year period.

At least do yourself a favor and check to see what your total return is with him vs simple index funds.

If you need a professional sounding board you can pay by the hour.

Yes that is the misunderstanding. Lets agree to disagree.

Probably not. I'm just telling you my observation.

And you're pointing out a problem without offering a solution. Your advice to OP is "don't link to Golfnow". So I suppose they should do what you do and just link to the course homepage... which links to Golfnow? What does that accomplish?

In any case, the golfnow.com is not what most people use to find courses. OP even said they are building their search app because "Google filters for golf course results are terrible". Not because golfnow.com searches are terrible. Golfnow is for booking, for which there are other alternatives that courses can use.

There are small golf courses near me that don't use them and that's fine. Please don't shame the ones that do.