OpenStructs are ungodly slow anyway. If you want such accessors you probably want a plain Struct anyway and not mix hashness and method accessors. You can even define additional methods on structs:
Foo = Struct.new(:a, :b, keyword_init: true) do
def frobz
...
end
end
Structs are quicker to instantiate than classes but slower to call methods on, so if you instantiate a lot but seldom call they're great. Otherwise a class is better.
Cursor looks very much in the ballpark and have done a good job. For us, the most important thing is not just code completion or talking with your code (there are many other tools that can do that), but giving the AI agent the freedom to Cmd+Click, Ask for References, all those things that we do in the editor.
Each interaction the user does with the editor needs to be thought out for the AI agent.. I kind of want to tell the AI agent to "follow these code pointers, and figure out how to add a widget on my website" (similar to how you would tell any other engineer in your team).
We want to build a development environment where AI and humans are working together, rather than humans being guided by the AI agent.
We are not there yet, but engineering the editor right now for these AI agents will pay out in the future as the underlying models improve.
I think once a pattern of behavior is established, this should reasonably inform your interpretation of their behavior. This is the "Boy who cried wolf" lesson. So, if someone lies a bunch, and they say something, it makes sense to ignore it. If you don't keep score, you'll be pilloried.
If someone makes unethical moves (like taking peoples twitter handles or boosting alt-right memes), it makes sense to assume that unethical behavior is more likely in the future. The reason people get angry with you is that you don't maintain the same "reputation score" in your head within the brackets they find acceptable. That is, I allow for variation in perception to some degree, but if at a certain point someone says something really admiring of someone who's proven to be wholly untrustworthy or destructive over and over again, as a matter of public record, I start to judge that person as unreliable and lacking in judgement. This often comes out as anger, I think because it's a simple way to use our social emotional brain to "keep score".
(This is particularly applicable for individuals and individual actions; it's more difficult to apply this rule for groups. For example, do you have great faith in "academia"? This may or may not be acceptable to me, depending on your definition and your knowledge.)
A post with no evidence, of some alleged action of the twitter url shortener, somehow becomes an Elon bad rant? "wholly untrustworthy or destructive" is only the case if you actually believe all the Verge headlines. What has been destroyed? Certainly not X which is growing in usage.
Your simplistic view of wanting to have a villian to hate who is always wrong and bad in everything they do is a very childish perspective, one that is sadly all too common online these days.
Your comment history appears to be solely pro-Tesla and pro-Musk, which suggests that you may need to reach a higher bar of support for your argument here. Calling someone's perspective childish is not especially constructive.
Set smaller goals. You learn more from finishing. Pick something you can almost do, cut it to one feature, and commit to it. Learn only enough to finish that one feature.
Copy from somewhere else something that is close to what you want and modify it.
You can do it. Start embarrassingly small and stack tiny successes on each other to the moon
You can never expect them to be on any better behavior, so expect this as your top bar for your relationship and you'll not have many surprises.
As a corollary, that means anything that looks like a red flag is probably an iceberg.