> they don't fully understand, the patch looks fine
I don't get this part. Why is the reviewer signing off on it? AI code should be fully documented (probably more so than a human could) and require new tests. Code review gates should not change
If an insider, say a member of the Department of Defense (or War, duh) bets a certain date: they could internally influence the decision to execute on that date rather than possibly a better (earlier?) date that could yield less damage or loss to either side.
When you prompt does the agent have access/visibility to all code bases/repos at once and do you prompt it to update both at the same time? That has worked well for me for client/server stuff.
I can almost guarantee that the Fargo DA’s office had zero idea this happened and had never heard about this investigation before the news story. At this stage in a “case” it’s completely on law enforcement and there is no involvement by a DA’s office for the arrest warrant or the extradition order and warrant that led to this situation.
Not a fan of DA’s offices in general (they are the “evil twin” to my particular line of work after all), but realistically this one isn’t on them.
I don't get this part. Why is the reviewer signing off on it? AI code should be fully documented (probably more so than a human could) and require new tests. Code review gates should not change
reply