YOyorwba·Jun 6, 2026
The &emdash; is probably human error, other parts of the HTML correctly use — or Unicode em-dashes. Also: https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b...
In Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?alexispurslane
rsync-analysis
Python2026–2026
alexispurslane / rsync-analysis
rsync-analysis
Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.
3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
4GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
A public description has not been verified.
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by hour3 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2026-06-05 13:19:10 UTC to 2026-06-06 10:54:38 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 13:00 | 2026-06-05 13:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 14:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Jun 5, 14:00 | 2026-06-05 14:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 15:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 15:00 | 2026-06-05 15:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 16:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 16:00 | 2026-06-05 16:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 17:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 17:00 | 2026-06-05 17:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 18:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 18:00 | 2026-06-05 18:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 19:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 19:00 | 2026-06-05 19:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 20:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 20:00 | 2026-06-05 20:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 21:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 21:00 | 2026-06-05 21:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 22:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Jun 5, 22:00 | 2026-06-05 22:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-05 23:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 5, 23:00 | 2026-06-05 23:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 00:00 | 2026-06-06 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 01:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 01:00 | 2026-06-06 01:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 02:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 02:00 | 2026-06-06 02:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 03:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 03:00 | 2026-06-06 03:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 04:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 04:00 | 2026-06-06 04:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 05:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 05:00 | 2026-06-06 05:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 06:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 06:00 | 2026-06-06 06:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 07:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 07:00 | 2026-06-06 07:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 08:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 08:00 | 2026-06-06 08:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 09:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 09:00 | 2026-06-06 09:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 10:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 6, 10:00 | 2026-06-06 10:00:00 UTC | 2026-06-06 11:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
3 sources> like the double standard between anti-AI and pro-AI claims, one of which gets to make claims based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and the other which must produce rigorous studies
This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up. It's way, way too late to claim hypocrisy here. As I stated under the original submission about this topic, irrational anti-AI behavior is usually just an equal and opposite reaction to irrational pro-AI behavior.
> I rewrote all the prose in the entire document just to satisfy critics like you.
And that doesn't help. If anything, editing the AI output to make it read less like
Read the rest
blatant slop just comes off as deceptive, like you're trying to hide the fact that the analysis was AI generated. Looking at the commits, you were adding more AI generated text less than 2 hours ago[0] before quickly editing out one of the most blatantly sloppy sentences I've ever read[1].
Regardless, the final contents of the article are not the main issue. Even if we ignore the bias clearly on display there, the premise alone is enough to dismiss the entire thing as heavily biased and chasing a pre-determined conclusion - of course someone who is so dependent and trustful of AI that they decide such an analysis on the bugginess of AI code should itself be written by AI is going to steer the conclusion towards "actually AI code is good and you luddites are overreacting". The entire concept is so tone-deaf that failing to notice it or predict the criticism before publishing is enough to prove the bias.
[0] https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/e029...
[1] https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b...
Okay, I really have to point out to everyone: the numbers and report cards are TEMPLATED IN BY A SCRIPT. Hallucinations are a moot point. https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/blob/main/s...
In Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?