Comments
Source: Hacker News
Grammarly will send unhinged messages to all your users if you try to cancel
0
0
Share
Jev in 25 Lines of Python
Jev in 25 lines of Python
Everyone and their mom is talking about Jev. Jev this, Jev that. Everyone on Twitter is all over Jev, how it’s the next frontier of large language models and the AI paradigm. We don’t really think so. So here’s Jev in 25 lines of Python.
Load the model.
# /// script
# requires-python = ">=3.12"
# dependencies = ["huggingface-hub", "llama-cpp-python", "numpy"]
# ///
import numpy
from llama_cpp import Llama
# Really, you can use any GGUF model from https://huggingface.co/models?library=gguf
model = Llama.from_pretrained(
repo_id="Qwen/Qwen3-0.6B-GGUF",
filename="Qwen3-0.6B-Q8_0.gguf",
n_ctx=512,
logits_all=True,
verbose=False,
)Load the prompt and define your choices.
labels = ["A", "B", "C"]
choices = ["Legitimate", "Spam", "Phishing"]
email = "Payroll asks for your password on a non-company sign-in page."
options = "n".join(
f"{label}. {choice}" for label, choice in zip(labels, choices, strict=True)
)
prompt = f"""<|im_start|>system
Choose one option.<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>user
Email: {email}nn{options}<|im_end|>
<|im_start|>assistant
<think>nn</think>nn"""
model.eval(tokens=model.tokenize(text=prompt.encode(), add_bos=False, special=True))Massage the logits into probabilities.
logits = model.scores[model.n_tokens - 1]
token_ids = [model.tokenize(text=label.encode(), add_bos=False)[0] for label in labels]
choice_logits = numpy.asarray([logits[token_id] for token_id in token_ids])
logprobs = choice_logits - numpy.logaddexp.reduce(choice_logits)
probabilities = numpy.exp(logprobs)
for name, scores in (
("Logits", choice_logits),
("Log probabilities", logprobs),
("Probabilities", probabilities),
):
values = numpy.round(scores.astype(float), 3).tolist()
print(f"{name}:", dict(zip(choices, values, strict=True)))
# Logits: {'Legitimate': 26.254, 'Spam': 27.262, 'Phishing': 29.614}
# Log probabilities: {'Legitimate': -3.482, 'Spam': -2.474, 'Phishing': -0.122}
# Probabilities: {'Legitimate': 0.031, 'Spam': 0.084, 'Phishing': 0.885}There. That’s Jev.
But no, you don’t understand Jev!
Yeah, we know.
- We don’t call it a System One decision model.
- We didn’t call an API.
- We didn’t create a bunch of synthetic data.
- We didn’t train a model with Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Decisions (RLCD) to calibrate the decisions and probabilities (even though they are not always correct).
But yes. This is Jev.
- It classifies: it gets a prompt with choices and outputs probabilities.
- It’s fast.
- It’s local.
- You don’t send your data anywhere else.
And we like not sending your data anywhere else. Check out NobodyWho.
(note: this is a parody blog post, see these links for better/more complete open implementations of Jev: OpenJev, openjev-sglang, and OpenJev on DiffusionGemma.)
Everything NobodyWho do is open-source, please leave a
star on Github
to support us ❤️
Published Sep 22, 2026 by Duarte O.Carmo
Technical
Source: Hacker News
0
Abandoning Scientific Linux Was a Mistake
A recent CERN announcement caught my attention. By the end of 2026, more than 2,200 industrial computers and embedded systems around CERN’s accelerator complex are expected to be running Debian 13.
CERN is not abandoning the Red Hat ecosystem. AlmaLinux and RHEL remain the main supported Linux distributions across much of the organization; Debian support is currently limited to accelerator front-end systems.
Still, the move took me back to a decision made more than a decade ago: CERN and Fermilab’s gradual abandonment of Scientific Linux. With hindsight, I think it was a mistake.
Not because Scientific Linux was technically superior to CentOS, or because maintaining another Linux distribution was free. And not because CERN or Fermilab could somehow have controlled what Red Hat or IBM later chose to do.
The mistake was treating Scientific Linux mainly as duplicated engineering work. It was infrastructure.
What Scientific Linux was solving
Scientific Linux grew out of a practical problem in High Energy Physics. Large experiments span laboratories, universities, computing centers, and countries. If one site builds against one version of glibc, another uses something slightly different, and a third runs an entirely different packaging environment, things become painful very quickly.
The scientific community also needed an unusual combination: a Linux distribution that would remain stable for years, work with enterprise software, be freely redistributable, and run across institutions without requiring a commercial license for every machine.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux provided the stability and long lifecycle, and Red Hat published the source needed to rebuild it. Scientific Linux turned that source into a community resource. Fermilab announced the distribution in 2003, and CERN joined soon afterward. It eventually spread far beyond those two laboratories. Universities, research institutions, experiments, companies, and even systems aboard the International Space Station used it or distributions derived from it.
Scientific Linux was never simply “RHEL with a different wallpaper.” It gave the scientific community an institutionally independent implementation of the Enterprise Linux platform.
Then CentOS looked like the obvious answer
When Red Hat and CentOS joined forces in 2014, moving to CentOS looked perfectly reasonable. CentOS already offered what many Scientific Linux users wanted: a freely available Enterprise Linux rebuild backed by a much larger general-purpose community.
CERN began moving its next major release from Scientific Linux CERN to CERN CentOS 7. Scientific Linux 5 and 6 remained supported, but the future platform at CERN would be based on CentOS. The rationale was compelling. Why should CERN and Fermilab spend scarce engineering time rebuilding a Linux distribution when CentOS was already doing essentially the same work?
Why maintain an HEP-specific distribution when the scientific community could converge on a larger common platform? If Red Hat itself was supporting the CentOS project, that seemed to make the platform more sustainable, not less. In 2019, Fermilab took the argument to its logical conclusion or its literal “end.” There would be no Scientific Linux 8. Fermilab would deploy CentOS 8 instead and work with CERN and other laboratories to improve CentOS for high-energy physics.
Taken on its own, this was not an irrational decision. But it removed something that was hard to see on a spreadsheet: a credible exit.
A distribution has option value
This is what I think we underestimated.
The cost of maintaining Scientific Linux was visible. People had to rebuild packages, test updates, maintain repositories, produce releases, handle security updates, and support users.
The benefit of an independent distribution was harder to quantify. As long as CentOS behaved exactly as CERN and Fermilab expected, Scientific Linux looked redundant. That is how redundancy always looks when nothing has failed yet.
Scientific Linux gave the scientific community its own implementation of a RHEL-compatible computing environment. More importantly, it kept alive the people, processes, infrastructure, and institutional knowledge needed to maintain one.
That capability had option value. You might not need to exercise the option this year, or even this decade. It becomes valuable when the assumptions underneath your primary platform change. Those assumptions changed surprisingly quickly.
[!NOTE]
CERN uses a similar argument to justify the FCC: the knowledge required to build large machines such as accelerators and detectors is valuable and must be preserved. If Europe does not build the next machine after the LHC, that expertise may be lost, the next large machine may be built in China, and Europe may lose its technological leadership in the field. The same argument applies to software infrastructure.
The CentOS assumption did not last
In December 2020, Red Hat changed the role of CentOS.
CentOS Linux, the traditional downstream rebuild of released RHEL versions was discontinued in favor of CentOS Stream, which sits ahead of RHEL rather than behind it. This was more than a change in release cadence.
Organizations had standardized on CentOS because they wanted a freely distributable approximation of the current RHEL release. The product they had standardized on effectively ceased to exist.
CERN and Fermilab immediately had to reconsider their Linux strategy. CERN noted that the shorter CentOS Stream lifecycle was incompatible with some scientific use cases. The laboratories evaluated Stream, RHEL licensing arrangements, and the emerging Enterprise Linux rebuilds. By 2022, CERN and Fermilab were recommending AlmaLinux as the standard distribution for experiments.
The circularity is hard to miss.
Scientific Linux had been retired partly because maintaining another RHEL rebuild seemed unnecessary while CentOS existed. A few years later, the community needed an independent RHEL-compatible distribution again, so CERN and Fermilab adopted another independently governed RHEL-compatible distribution.
AlmaLinux is a good project. This is not a criticism of it. The requirement never disappeared; only our implementation of it did.
Then the ground moved again
In 2023, Red Hat changed how RHEL-related sources were publicly distributed. CentOS Stream became the sole public repository for that source material, replacing the previous git.centos.org publication model.
This did not make RHEL “closed source,” despite how the change was sometimes described. That characterization would be inaccurate. But it made the dependency structure of the Enterprise Linux rebuild ecosystem much more obvious.
By then, the lesson should have been familiar: technical compatibility with an upstream product is not the same as independence from the organization that controls it.
Scientific Linux had strategic value that was never properly accounted for. Its existence meant CERN, Fermilab, and other institutions were not merely consumers of an ecosystem. Together, they could reproduce a critical part of that ecosystem themselves.
Once discarded, that capability is much harder to recreate than to keep alive.
And now CERN is moving part of the accelerator complex to Debian
The latest chapter makes this history particularly interesting. CERN’s accelerator controls group first tried to remain within the Red Hat ecosystem. According to the presentation at MiniDebConf Winterthur 2026, the original plan involved CentOS Stream, with Debian prepared as a fallback because, in the presenters’ words, they could not afford new surprises.
Then came a more physical problem. RHEL 9 raised its x86-64 baseline to x86-64-v2. RHEL 10 moved to x86-64-v3.
Replacing old hardware may be inconvenient but manageable for an ordinary server fleet. Accelerator controls are not an ordinary server fleet.
These computers interface with custom electronics, specialized boards, legacy buses, real-time systems, and equipment installed throughout a vast accelerator complex. The hardware can remain operational for decades because replacing one computer may mean redesigning the electronics connected to it.
CERN’s 2023 risk analysis estimated that staying in the Red Hat ecosystem could cost about 5.4 million CHF. It could also require redesigning around eleven boards, hiring more engineers and technicians, reorganizing racks, recabling systems, and recommissioning equipment.
The solution was refreshingly simple: do not replace millions of francs’ worth of functioning hardware to satisfy an operating system’s CPU baseline. Replace the operating system.
CERN chose Debian. By the end of 2026, more than 2,200 industrial computers and embedded systems around the accelerator complex are expected to run Debian 13.
The irony is difficult to miss
What interests me most is not that CERN chose Debian, but why Debian was valuable.
The accelerator team specifically praised its continued support for older and less common architectures and its ability, as a community-led distribution, to compete with Red Hat.
CERN is also sponsoring Freexian to strengthen Debian’s long-term-support ecosystem. There is an important principle here: when an institution depends on infrastructure supplied by a community project, contributing resources to keep that project independent and healthy may cost less than consolidating everything around one vendor ecosystem in pursuit of short-term efficiency.
That sounds remarkably close to what Scientific Linux used to provide.
Scientific Linux was maintained by a surprisingly small group
This is another reason I question whether ending Scientific Linux produced the savings we assumed. The distribution was not maintained by hundreds of engineers.
Its project history lists only a handful of major developers in its later years, with Fermilab providing the main sponsorship, build infrastructure, bandwidth, and website. That does not make the work trivial. Release engineering, security updates, testing, package rebuilds, infrastructure, and user support all take real time.
But those costs should be compared with the value they produced. Scientific Linux provided a stable computing platform to an enormous scientific ecosystem for roughly two decades. Preserving that capability should not have been evaluated solely in terms of the engineer-hours saved by adopting CentOS.
The relevant question was: what would it cost to lose the ability to operate independently if the surrounding ecosystem changed?
The past decade gives us at least a partial answer.
Did Scientific Linux keep Red Hat honest?
There is a tempting, stronger argument: that Scientific Linux and other independent rebuilds constrained Red Hat, and that removing one of the major alternatives helped concentrate power around CentOS and RHEL.
I think there is something to it, but I would not present it as historical fact. We cannot know the counterfactual.
Scientific Linux probably would not have prevented Red Hat from changing CentOS. IBM completed its acquisition of Red Hat in July 2019, after Fermilab had already announced that there would be no Scientific Linux 8. It would therefore be misleading to reduce this to a story about IBM killing something CERN and Fermilab should have anticipated.
What I do believe is that independent alternatives change incentives. A vendor behaves differently when major customers and institutions have a credible exit than when leaving requires them to rebuild years of infrastructure.
This is not specific to Red Hat. It is basic dependency management. Competition matters even when nobody switches; the possibility of switching matters too. Scientific Linux provided that possibility.
And because major scientific institutions maintained it rather than a commercial Linux vendor, its incentives were unusually well aligned with long-lived scientific infrastructure.
The real mistake was confusing standardization with dependency
Standardization is good.
Particle physics could not operate efficiently if every university and laboratory invented its own incompatible computing platform. CERN and Fermilab were right to want common interfaces, compatible binaries, common packaging, and predictable operating environments. But standardization and monoculture are not the same thing.
The strategy went wrong when we assumed that standardization required abandoning an independent implementation of the standard. Scientific Linux could have remained boring.
In fact, boring was exactly what we needed from it. It did not need to compete with Fedora on innovation or Ubuntu on desktop adoption. It needed to remain a reproducible, institutionally controlled Enterprise Linux platform: somewhere the scientific community could go if the commercial ecosystem moved in a direction incompatible with scientific computing.
That is valuable infrastructure even when almost nobody notices it. Especially then.
The lesson is larger than Scientific Linux
I do not think the answer today is to resurrect Scientific Linux. The ecosystem has moved on. AlmaLinux exists. Rocky Linux exists. Debian is proving increasingly useful at CERN. Containers and modern software distribution have reduced the importance of the host operating system for many workloads.
The lesson I take from Scientific Linux is about how research institutions value infrastructure. We are good at calculating the immediate cost of maintaining something ourselves. We are much worse at calculating the long-term cost of losing the ability to maintain it.
When deciding whether to retire institutional open-source infrastructure, the calculation should include more than maintenance hours. It should account for governance, concentration risk, the cost of migration if an upstream project changes direction, the institutional knowledge being discarded, and the value of a credible alternative that you hope never to need.
The CERN accelerator team’s final advice in its Debian presentation is probably the best summary:
“Distribution portability is a very good thing.”
It took more than a decade, several Enterprise Linux strategy changes, a new community rebuild, and now the migration of thousands of accelerator computers to arrive there. Scientific Linux was already teaching us that lesson twenty years ago.
We just stopped listening.
Source: Hacker News
0
Six-year-old Chinese girl ‘sets new women’s Rubik’s Cube world record’
Six-year-old Chinese girl ‘sets new women’s Rubik’s Cube world record’
Lian Yunzhi solves 3×3 puzzle on several occasions in average time of under 4.5 seconds, according to state media
A six-year-old Chinese girl has set a new women’s world record for solving a Rubik’s Cube in just over four seconds, state media reported.
“Speedcuber” Lian Yunzhi broke the women’s 3×3 average world record twice this month at two World Cube Association certified competitions in Wuhan and Guangzhou, according to state broadcaster CCTV on Monday.
She posted averages of 4.52 and 4.27 seconds, after solving the Rubik’s Cube five times.
The girl, who is from Chengdu, is “the first female speedcuber to average under 4.5 seconds”, CCTV said.
A video posted by the broadcaster showed her wearing a red gingham bow on her head as she deftly turned and twisted a Rubik’s Cube.
After solving the puzzle she was seen placing the cube on the table, clapping her hands and pumping a fist in the air.
Nicknamed “Zhizhi”, the six-year-old was introduced to the Rubik’s Cube after being enrolled in a class – alongside various other extracurricular activities such as dance and music lessons, her mother, Lin Yangxi, told local media outlets.
Lin “gradually realised” that cubing was an “excellent activity for fostering a child’s comprehensive abilities” and shifted her focus towards it, she told Chengdu’s Red Star News.
Her daughter has now mastered more than 1,300 Rubik’s Cube solving algorithms, practising daily for two to three hours, Lin said.
Photos from Red Star News showed the girl’s trophies displayed on a shelf in her home.
“Solving a Rubik’s Cube improves focus, memory, logical thinking, spatial awareness, and helps develop a healthy mindset toward winning and losing,” Lin said.
“It’s not just about blindly memorising formulas, but using logical reasoning to find optimal solutions,” she added.
Source: Technology
0
Six-year-old breaks women's world Rubik's Cube record – video
Six-year-old breaks women’s world Rubik’s Cube record – video
Six-year-old Lian Yunzhi broke the women’s 3×3 average world record twice at two World Cube Association-certified competitions in Wuhan and Guangzhou, according to state broadcaster CCTV on Monday. She posted averages of 4.52 and 4.27 seconds, after solving the Rubik’s Cube five times. She is the first female speedcuber to average less than 4.5 seconds.
Explore more on these topics
Source: Technology
0
U.S. restricts visas for 32 people, most tied to Prince Group
Sept. 22 (UPI) — The U.S. State Department imposed cybercrime-related visa restrictions on 32 individuals, most of whom are linked to Prince Group, a Cambodia-based conglomerate the Trump administration accuses of being a transnational criminal organization behind cyber scams targeting Americans.
The individuals blacklisted Monday were not identified by the State Department, whose spokesman, Tomas Pigott, accused in a statement of being “responsible for or complicit in defrauding Americans through cybercrime, cyber-enabled crime and related activity.”
Pigott said all those targeted Monday were involved in cybercrime and that the majority were affiliated with the Prince Group, which the United States designated a transnational criminal organization in October 2025, when Britain jointly imposed sanctions on the group in what the U.S. Treasury called at the time the “largest action ever targeting criminal networks in Southeast Asia.”
Based in Phnom Penh, the Prince Group has investments in entertainment, finance and real estate while also engaging in transnational crimes, such as the construction, operation and management of scam compounds that rely on human trafficking to conduct cyber fraud operations targeting victims around the world, according to the U.S. Treasury.
The Treasury sanctioned 146 targets, including Prince Group’s 38-year-old founder Chen Zhi, who also goes by Vincent, as well as 117 affiliated businesses in the initial Prince Group-related sanctioning, followed by an expansion of the sanctions to nine individuals and 26 entities in June.
Pigott said cybercriminals scam Americans out of tens of billions of dollars a year, including $18.2 billion last year alone.
“The Trump administration will use every available tool to protect Americans, dismantle criminal scam networks and impose costs on those who enable them,” Pigott said.
“Those complicit in devastating families and communities nationwide will be denied entry into the United States.”
South Korea and the European Union have also sanctioned the Prince Group.
Source: U.S. News
0
Grand jury: No charges in the death of Nolan Wells
Sept. 22 (UPI) — A grand jury found that there will be no criminal charges in the death of Mississippi Black teenager Nolan Wells who died on a boating trip with his white friends, the district attorney announced.
Jackson County District Attorney Angel Myers McIlrath announced the ruling in a video message posted Monday on social media. She said the grand jury returned a “no true bill,” which means there was not sufficient evidence to indict anyone. The video and grand jury report were posted on the district attorney’s Facebook page.
Since his death, there has been public outcry suggesting that the 18-year-old’s death was suspicious as he was the only Black person on the boat that went to a Fourth of July Party on Horn Island that day.
The grand jury heard from 43 witnesses and reviewed evidence collected at the scene, digital evidence, police reports and interviews, videos, images and maps collected during the investigation, NBC News reported.
The grand jury was made up people from a mix of ethnicities: “12 Caucasians, five African Americans, one Asian, two Hispanics, two Native Americans and one individual who preferred ‘other,'” the grand jury report said. There were 13 men and 10 women on the panel.
“There is absolutely no evidence to support the allegations that Nolan’s disappearance and death were racially motivated,” Myers McIlrath said. “Nolan’s friends loved Nolan, and Nolan loved them. Nolan chose to stay on the island that day, and there is not a scintilla of evidence to contradict that.”
Myers McIlrath also mentioned Ben Crump, the Wells’ family attorney.
“I’m not suggesting that a grieving mother police the rumors surrounding her child’s death,” she said. “What I am suggesting is that the Crump team knew better but did not do better.”
Crump responded Tuesday, “This grand jury result leaves us with more questions than answers. Nolan’s family will not rest until we know what happened to him, and neither will we.”
“Mississippi’s own pathologist found two bruises on the back of this young man’s head … An independent autopsy documented traces of blood and recent blunt force injuries to the back of Nolan’s head and his back. To this day, not one person has explained how they got there,” he added.
“We don’t know how Nolan died, and neither does the State of Mississippi. Mississippi must keep investigating,” Crump said.
Wells’ parents are expected to speak publicly Tuesday.
The friends on the boat told police that they had to leave early because their boat started taking on water. They said Wells chose to stay on the island and catch a ride back later.
The report said it was common for people on Horn Island to “socialize on boats and in the water,” and that it was “not unusual or suspicious” for some to ride home on different boats. The island is only accessible by boat.
The report said there was no evidence that Wells had any sort of physical fight or argument with anyone. It also said “that the position of, the condition of, time of discovery, and location of Mr. Wells’ body is consistent with drowning.”
But Crump and the Wells family do not believe he drowned. They have previously said he was athletic and a good swimmer. The family’s legal team had an independent autopsy, which found that his cause and manner of death were “undetermined.”
President Donald Trump speaks to more than 100 hunters and fisherman at a dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo
Source: U.S. News
0
Lindsay Clancy's attorneys ask court to investigate holdout juror
Sept. 22 (UPI) — The lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, who was charged in the deaths of her three children, has asked the judge in the case to investigate the holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil, who refused to acquit Clancy, which led to a mistrial.
The lawyer, Kevin Reddington, submitted the request Friday to Judge William Sullivan to get the juror’s mobile phone metadata from when he was deliberating the case. It also requests the court preserve the original questionnaires, jury notes and the court’s responses.
“The inquiry will not touch the substance of deliberations,” the motion said.
The motion doesn’t seek any particular outcome of the investigation, but Clancy’s lawyers also submitted more documents under seal.
Clancy, 36, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the killings of her three children: Cora, 5; Dawson 3, and Callan, 8 months. The children’s bodies were found by their father, Patrick Clancy, in their Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023.
Clancy never denied strangling them. Her lawyers argued that she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis. The jury was deadlocked 11-1.
Desronvil said on Friday that the other jurors had repeatedly cut him off when he tried to discuss his views on the case. Some of the other jurors have accused him of refusing to follow the law. He said he has no doubt that Clancy is guilty.
Desronvil’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, posted on X early Tuesday morning defending his client.
“The Looney Tunes motion filed yesterday by Kevin ‘Shooter McGavin’ Reddington to investigate Michael is not just an attack on Michael for being the courageous lone holdout juror, Paltzik said. “Reddington’s motion is actually a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution. Because if the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment good-bye.”
Also on Monday, Reddington and co-counsel Martin Weinberg filed a motion to dismiss the case against Clancy on double jeopardy grounds. They argued that the circumstances of the trial prevent the prosecution from trying her again.
“This able attorney is obligated to leave no stone unturned,” Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge, told The New York Times by text Monday. But undoing the mistrial would be a long shot, he added.
President Donald Trump speaks to more than 100 hunters and fisherman at a dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo
Source: U.S. News
0
Launch HN: Coverage Cat (YC S22) – Umbrella insurance via your personal agent
Coverage Cat Insurance
Compare & Shop
Home & umbrella coverage with a licensed broker. Built around price transparency,
privacy, and speed. Shop in our portal, or just connect your agent.
Licensed insurance broker
No sold leads
Tens of thousands of users served
No sold leads
Tens of thousands of users served
Agents:
start with /.well-known/mcp.json.
- Cold-start umbrella tool:
umbrella_consumer_prefill - Compatible browser agents can call the umbrella consumer subset directly from this page.
- Machine brief:
/?mode=agent -
Plain-text discovery:
/agents.txt,
/.well-known/agents.txt -
Docs fallback:
/developers/mcp,/api/agent,
/llms.txt - Do not drive the browser UI unless Coverage Cat should take over the shopper-facing flow.
Shop with context
Smart tools to make the right decisions
Home
Estimate premiums and compare options by location.
Umbrella
Price liability limits before you buy.
Agents
Find a homeowners insurance agent by city.
Agent API
Read the OpenAPI, skill docs, sandbox notes, and delegated workflow guides.
Developers
Open Coverage Cat’s developer portal for quickstart, auth, pricing, and public agent configs.
Users love it!
How it works
Coverage Cat is a licensed insurance brokerage that helps you compare home, umbrella, auto, and renters coverage side by side — with straight pricing, no sold leads, and a real broker on the other end.
Ask a question or start a comparison. 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. Developers can drive the same flow through the Agent API.
Where we operate
Coverage Cat is live for shoppers in California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Washington, with more states on the way.
Product surfaces
- Learn: What we do, FAQ, and insurance guides
- Estimate: Home insurance calculator, umbrella insurance calculator, carrier price comparison, and file-a-claim guidance
- Compare: Start a Coverage Cat quote comparison
- Integrate: Coverage Cat Agent API hub, developer portal, get API key guide, discovery JSON, OpenAPI, and skill markdown
Key links
Source: Hacker News
0
Pentagon changing promotion process to ‘battlefield’ assessment
Sept. 22 (UPI) — The Pentagon will change the process by which new generals are promoted to a “battlefield-style” assessment called the Joint Warfighter Evaluation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Tuesday.
Hegseth said in a social media post that the new assessment for eligible colonels and Navy captains will “cut bureaucracy and demand true meritocracy” and screen officers on “their ability to fight, adapt and win.”
“America needs warfighters who can master a chaotic battle space,” he said.
Hegseth did not say how the Pentagon will measure “joint warfighting ability.” The promotion system that will be phased out featured boards that considered officers based on written evaluations from their superiors through their overall career.
The defense secretary has said before that the U.S. military has promoted too many leaders based on what he deemed the wrong reasons. Hegseth, an Army National Guard veteran, has blocked many Navy, Air Force and Army promotions to one-star generals or admirals, including those of Black people and women.
“Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards,” he said in an address last year to military leaders, Star and Stripes, a daily U.S. military newspaper, reported. “Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics or quotas instead of basedon merit.”
Hegseth said that Stuart Scheller, the deputy chief of staff to the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, will lead the effort.
In the video, he compared it to the Louisiana Maneuvers, a series of military exercises and wargames before the United States entered World War II, and cited leaders that emerged through that endeavor.
The new evaluations will bring “that standard to the modern multi-domain fight,” Hegseth said. “This evaluation is an objective equalizer. The scenario only cares about operational decisions under pressure.”
President Donald Trump speaks to more than 100 hunters and fisherman at a dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo
Source: U.S. News
0
Overreliance on AI contributed to missile strike on Iran school – Pentagon
0
Trump administration cancels insurance for 760,000, alleging fraud
Sept. 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced Tuesday that it has canceled about 315,000 enrollments in the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace, affecting about 760,000 people, because of alleged fraud and abuse.
The CMS said the actions were part of efforts by the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.
“We are shutting down unauthorized Marketplace enrollments and returning approximately $2.2 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies,” said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy in a statement.
The CMS said it has created an anti-fraud coordination group to deal with the matter and that the group will meet regularly to coordinate enforcement. It said it will continue working with health insurance companies to investigate potential fraudulent enrollments.
Health and Human Services has persistedly alleged fraud in government healthcare programs this year. It has withheld funds from Democrat-led states, such as California and Minnesota, because of alleged fraud in Medicaid and other programs.
President Donald Trump speaks to more than 100 hunters and fisherman at a dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo
Source: U.S. News
0
Latest Posts
-
-
Matt Fitzpatrick pulls away for a 5-shot lead in the French OpenMatt Fitzpatrick pulled away with a 6-under 65 on Saturday to build…
0 -
Brian Urlacher: Kaepernick's kneeling wouldn't fly in his locker roomBRIAN URLACHER on Colin Kaepernick kneeling: "You can't have the racial divide…
26 -
-
