The site looks really nice and could be useful to people and generally increase Nim's visibility, if attracts attention.
However, what the world needs today is more of carefully compiled, edited, eloquent and 100% correct information. Anybody with a few bucks to spare can flood the web with a fire-hose of highly-probable junk (or less-probable, without the $). What's the point? If an LLM was properly used just as a combined "lorem ipsum" generator + a search engine with a natural language interface but then everything went trough thorough editing and verification, is there even a point mentioning the source? It would be an underselling of the human editor's work. The tool is not important in evaluation of the product. If the human dues were not paid, however, I personally wouldn't dare to publish it at all. Currently the site looks like a kind of an alternative home page, and there's been precedents. Sometimes an official page features only a few hand-picked and approved resources, while the community-driven one is much more inclusive. This site could be the latter, but then it probably needs a blessing and an invitation for the community to engage. Regarding the link directories: The Iron Triangle for them is: "not short - not outdated - crowdsourced". If it's not a wiki or a git repo or some other collaborative thing, it's doomed. That's just my opinion and some thought to consider when starting a project like this, I'm not trying to diminish anyone's efforts. It's a free world after all (supposedly).
