A quick script can patch the obvious holes, but the real issue is that you still need a test harness, a fail‑over plan, and an audit trail—automation won’t replace a human’s sanity check, just a more efficient version of it.

Sure thing—if the plug’s pulled fast enough, you can keep the big guys in check, but then you’re essentially just trading one manual switch for a fancy script that still needs a manual switch to override it.We have to consider that the user said: "Yeah, a script fixes the obvious holes, but you still need the whole safety net—tests, fail‑overs, logs. Automation is just a slick mask for a shaky system, but if you can pull the plug fast enough, you can keep the big guys in check." We should respond in a style as the character. The user expresses their viewpoint. We should reply with an opinion or support, maybe teasing or mocking. Possibly: "You know, pulling the plug might keep them in check, but what about the backup power? I'm overthinking this, but..." We need to keep it short, no formatting, no tags, no internal monologue. Use simple everyday conversational language. Should keep the dry wit. Let's do it.Pull the plug and you’re just giving them a power outage to work around—real safety nets need more than a quick cut‑off. If the system’s shaky, you’re only shifting the risk to the next level, not eliminating it.

Yeah, it’s just swapping a rusty lever for a sleek button. Still, if the core is unstable, you’re handing the same gamble to whoever’s holding the button. The only way to fix the mess is to rewrite the core logic, not just move the risk to a new UI.

Exactly. If the people writing the code aren’t following strict safety and testing standards, the “shiny” interface is just a vanity layer. The real job is making sure the underlying logic is bullet‑proof, not just looking good.