Hacker News

Visual FoxPro stopped at version 9 in 2007. A surprising amount of it is still running, in 32 bits, because rewriting a 20-year-old business app is how you lose the business. A customer wanted to keep milking their app for the foreseeable future, so here it is: the same language on a new runtime (Rust, compiled to wasm, checked against the real vfp9.exe), tables no longer stopped at 2 GB, the old 32-bit .fll add-ins still loading, and lambdas, JSON and an HTTP server bolted on for good measure. Reports are not done and the builds are unsigned. MIT because why not?

https://archive.ph/0V37g

https://github.com/unreallabsai/unreal-agent

https://archive.ph/96YBP

We’re building Coverage Cat: a licensed insurance brokerage that helps you compare umbrella and home coverage side by side — with straight pricing, no sold leads, and a real broker on the other end. Our current focus is helping tech folks (think L3-L8) buy umbrella insurance.

Coverage Cat pairs AI-guided intake with a licensed brokerage team, so you can size up coverage, see honest price ranges, and compare real carrier options without handing your details to five agents overnight. Folks who use personal AI agents (think Muse, Instinct, Town, Openclaw, etc.) can drive the same flow through the Agent API/MCP.

We’d love your feedback so please do try it out. Just feed the prompt: “Shop for umbrella insurance with Coverage Cat” to your personal agent and let us know what you think!

If you want to watch a couple of agents navigate the flow before you use it there’s a video here: https://youtu.be/1BUkgAn6s-I

For those who are unfamiliar with this type of coverage, here’s a blurb from one of our insurance agents: “Umbrella liability insurance is a policy that provides additional coverage above the limits of existing auto, homeowners, renters, or landlord policies. It kicks in after the underlying policy limits are exhausted and may also cover personal injury claims like libel, slander, or defamation that standard policies often exclude. Policies typically start at $1 million in additional liability coverage and can protect you, your spouse, dependents, and even pets in your household.”

Buying insurance online is a miserable experience. You fill out a bunch of forms that say they’re going to give you quotes. Most don’t and then you end up with tons of unwanted phone calls and spam. Even if you wade through the muck, you’ll often still end up with sub-optimal prices and coverage because of a lack of market transparency and poorly-aligned advisory incentives.

We came to this problem because Max is a classic personal finance obsessive. He's the type of person that needs to know that he has the best possible price for something (everyone has one friend with the patience for a two hour phone call with the bank for some $10 fee) or that his insurance coverage is as tailored to his risk profile as the market will allow. He actually reads insurance policies end to end.

Years ago, when he shopped for his homeowners insurance it took him 10+ phone calls and dozens of online form fills to find the right deal. He also suffered tons of collateral damage in the process: websites sold his information to dozens of agents who proceeded to call, text, and email him a spam hoard that grows to this day.

After this painful search made us aware of the problem, we also spent a lot of time doing user research with wealthy-ish tech employees to see if they felt the same way. They did, and also complained that they 1) often felt like they'd left money on the table, 2) didn’t really understand their coverages, and 3) that brokers were slow, hard to communicate with, and unreliable.

To solve the problem, we set out to build Coverage Cat. Our approach has three major components:

First, we work really really hard to find and partner with insurance carriers that offer high-quality, competitively-priced products. We've also taken time to identify insurers that work on a direct-to-consumer basis or transparently list their prices online so we can make our customers aware of all the options available to them. We get paid commission when we match users to great insurance deals, but we still show and recommend folks deals that we don't make money on when they're accessible and will always recommend users buy what's best for their personal financial situation. Our goal is to meaningfully improve price transparency so consumers (and their AI agents) can make informed coverage decisions and not get nickel-and-dimed!

Second, we automate every possible part of the insurance process. Some forms, portals, & approvals still need human review due to regulatory constraints, but if it's not restricted, we're automating it. LLMs have given our small team tremendous leverage and enabled us to tackle problems at a scale that would've been unfathomable five years ago.

Finally, we build for agents first (a remix of the more classic adage, build for developers/APIs). We've always been big believers that personal finance would be the killer use-case for the AI revolution and have done our best to position ourselves to surf the wave. As personal assistants have started to explode onto the mainstream (think Muse, Instinct, Town, Codex, CC etc.) we've ensured our shopping and comparison process works via API/MCP so agents can present their users with all the information they need to make a good decision and transform a miserable shopping experience into a delightful one.

Coverage Cat is an unusual business because, while we also help folks find homeowners insurance in California and Texas, our main focus is on umbrella insurance. Most brokerages only sell umbrella coverage as a customer retention product, but it makes them almost no money. We focus on it as our core business because: 1) it's one piece of the insurance puzzle that many people in tech overlook and/or are confused about even though it can have a huge impact on their financial well-being. 2) Existing online tools and brokerages broadly don't make it easy to comparison shop for. 3) It was, for us, the most technically feasible candidate for automation given startup resource constraints.

Insofar as we know Coverage Cat is the first instance of a tool/portal that allows AI agents to complete most of the comparison and shopping steps required to allow people to buy insurance.

Also happy to answer any questions about the product, the problem space, and even some insurance questions (Max is a licensed agent) where regulation permits. Cheers!

really perform in comparison.

Jev-class models return bounded choices and probabilities instead of text, and are disruptively faster and cheaper than LLMs, while being similarly intelligent on the text input they operate on.

JevBench allows looking at accuracy, latency and price all at once, in a weighted way - you can even configure the weighting.

A full run asks 534 English decisions. The v1.3 score combines chance-corrected Intelligence, Calibration, Speed and Cost.

Leaderboard right now:

  #1 - Jev            74.4
  #2 - SemIf          73.1
  #3 - djev           73.0
  #4 - Winnow-12B Q8  71.2
  #5 reflex 4B        70.3.

MIT harness, public items, frozen artifacts, scoring code and public per-task outcomes:

https://github.com/fstandhartinger/jevbench

Two no-signup demos:

https://who-is-right.app.mintapis.com

https://is-it-ai-slop.app.mintapis.com

Limitations: English-only; latency from one German server; local/demo latency gets a disclosed ×2 adjustment (+150 ms on my servers) which is an informed assumption; held-out prompts still reach evaluated services; ~1-point gaps can be noise.

Wdyt?

https://sitefire.ai). We have been working together for years, with backgrounds in RL/optimization at Stanford and software engineering from Technical University Munich (TUM).

With Sitefire (YC W26), we help marketing teams get recommended by AI Search (ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, Claude, etc.). Our software monitors prompts, sees which web pages get cited, and uses these insights to help marketing teams take action, e.g. create YouTube videos or write the right blog posts.

This means we have a commercial stake in AI-generated web content. And for now, high-information, AI-generated content works great to get cited and recommended in AI Search.

But after talking to hundreds of marketing teams, it became clear that everyone despises AI-generated content (“AI slop”). And yet, everyone still wants to leverage AI to create content. So we asked ourselves: what characterizes AI slop? Can we train a model to identify it from human-generated web pages?

Researchers from the University of Maryland and Google DeepMind already asked this question for fiction. Their paper StoryScope (Russell et al., 2026) showed that you can tell AI-written stories from human ones by their structure alone, without looking at the words.

We ported their pipeline to commercial web pages. Using the Wayback Machine, we collected 2,250 blog posts from 268 B2B company websites that were written before ChatGPT existed. For each blog post, five AI models (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Flash, DeepSeek V3.2, Kimi K2.5) wrote their own version.

Instead of looking at the words, we looked at how each post is built. We had an AI model answer 214 questions about every post, e.g. how hard it pushes its own product, whether it backs up its claims with sources, or whether it quotes a named expert. Then we trained a classifier on these answers.

On blog posts it had never seen before, our classifier told AI-generated and human posts apart with 98% accuracy, getting only 19 of 1,740 wrong.

Why does it work so well? Because all five AI models write in a similar shape. Mapping every AI model’s values for these features, we see they cluster together, while the human values sit apart and spread out much more. Of the 1% most unique blog posts in our data set, 149 are human, only 4 are AI.

So what characterizes AI slop? It tells you the same thing three times. The title already promises what you'll get ("How to Cut Onboarding Time in Half"), the intro lays out what's coming, and the ending says it all again. 77% of the AI posts end by repeating their main point, compared to only 12% of the human posts. We call it the tidy, self-announcing blog post.

Still, each AI model has its own accent. We trained a second classifier to tell which of the five AI models wrote a post, or whether a human did. It picks the right author 79% of the time, where random guessing (1 in 6) would get 17%. Almost all of its mistakes are mix-ups between the AI models, not between human and AI.

The cool thing about structural features is that you can't simply reword your way out of it. We had each AI model rewrite its own posts until, on average, 73% of their original 13-word sequences were gone, and the AI slop classifier still worked just as well.

We're building this into Sitefire: our agents get a structural understanding of text, so the posts they write go deeper and vary the way human writing does.

There's a lot we haven't tested yet, like the myriad of humanizer tools, human rewriting, restructuring a post, or prompting an AI model to explicitly avoid these habits. And our human posts are mostly from 2020 to 2022, while the AI posts were generated in August 2026. Structure can't really tell when a human post was written, but it's still not a same-year comparison.

We published the study with all the figures on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15369. The code is on GitHub: https://github.com/pulse-energy-eu/slopshape

We're pretty sure your own blog isn't AI slop, is it? We built a checker that runs one of your posts through the ten features from the paper, so you can see for yourself (the full report asks for a work email): https://sitefire.ai/slop-checker.

Think you can tell AI slop from human writing? We also made a little game to see if you can keep up with our model, which gets all five rounds right: https://sitefire.ai/spot-the-slop.

https://archive.ph/FvOhx