Yeah I learn from reading other work too, but it doesn’t stick as well as when I work through it.

The problem now is the pressure to use llms means creating more code but understanding so much less.

I interpreted this as not as good a way to learn.

I learn the most from struggling through a problem, and reading someone’s code doesn’t teach me all the wrong ways they attempted before it looked like the way it now does.

I'm not sure it's been codified, but I was told I would need to understand how to use the VOR and autopilot if the plane I was in had one.

In the fleet at the school I was learning in (Cessna 162) only one plane had an autopilot, which meant nobody practiced with it, so they never scheduled this plane for a check ride.

This would be more like they enabled cruise control, hit the brakes, and sued the manufacturer because they were rear-ended.

I don't mean a reasonable pilot. Would a reasonable person expect autopilot in a plane prevents a plane from crashing into something that the pilot was accelerating towards while physically overriding the controls. The claim is that autopilot should not have been able to crash even with the driver actively overriding it and accelerating into that crash.

To me, it's reasonable to assume that the "autopilot" in a car I drive (especially back in 2019) is going to defer to any input override that I provide. I wouldn't want it any other way.