docs: a footer note on building with AI

The point is not a disclaimer, it is the argument: the tool is not the measure
of a project. Code nobody understands is bad code whoever typed it, and code
whose every decision can be explained is good code by the same standard.

Placed next to a link to history/ on purpose. That directory is where the
claim can be checked -- the bugs are written up in full, including the wrong
hypotheses and the measurements that killed them. An explanation you can
follow is the evidence; a byline is not.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VQ7Qx8E1q1M1bbCq8QLHS2
This commit is contained in:
Nexoniarz 2026-09-12 21:58:20 +02:00
commit b6450d866d
4 changed files with 48 additions and 0 deletions

View file

@ -576,3 +576,18 @@ body.reading footer { margin-top: auto; }
.top nav a.on { color: var(--fg); }
.readerlink { margin-top: 2rem; }
/* A footer note that is a paragraph rather than a credit line. Same width
discipline as body text: these are read, not scanned. */
footer .note {
flex-basis: 100%;
max-width: 54rem;
color: var(--dim);
font-size: 0.82rem;
line-height: 1.7;
}
footer .note b { color: var(--fg); font-weight: 700; }
footer .note a { color: var(--accent); }
/* The two notes sit below the identity line, not beside it. */
footer .wrap { row-gap: 1.5rem; }