Valid concern - April does not write emails for you unless you specifically ask for it. Users usually dictate what they want to reply.

But do you think a 'safe mode' - where April does only non destructive operation like read/summarize/draft/move emails to a folder would help you build trust?

It's in our pipeline - we can prioritize it to mitigate that fear.

I think you totally could replicate these experiences without the restaurant involved. Fun surprises are nice, but the absurdity of having the restaurant provide these kinds of experiences seems tacky.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting the restaurant's personality to be just as much a part of the experience as my own personality. Otherwise, what makes this place more special than any other wanting to pull the same gimmicks?

Seems like the potential start of a dystopian nightmare to me.

Wouldn't be better for all concerned if a 2 star restaurant worked at providing better food and service instead of privacy invasion and exploitation of the vain?

I commented on this before, I'm in this weird "opinion arbitrage" spot where I'm relatively skeptical by HN standards but I'm actually pushing for more usage at work. Hell, I'm typing this while I wait for Claude to be done.

The reason for my skepticism is the delta between what they're being sold as and what they actually do. All AI solutions, including agents (especially agents!), are effectively worse-than-worthless without guidance from someone experienced. There's very little that's "autonomous" about them, in fact.

The very guy who coined the term "vibe coding" went on stage effectively saying we're putting the carriage before the horse!

Omitting the important caveat that while they are fantastic tools they need to be restrained a lot is effectively lying.

A lot of people don't know what this Section 174 is about, so here's a brief explainer.

Normally, when you have expenses, you deduct them off your revenue to find your taxable profit. If you have $1 million in sales, and $900k in costs, you have $100k in profit, and the government taxes you on that profit.

Section 174 says you can't do this for software engineers. If you pay a software engineer, that's not "really" an "expense", regardless of the fact that you paid them.

What you've actually done, Congress said, is bought a capital good, like a machine. And for calculating tax owed, you have to depreciate that over several years (5 in this case).

Depreciating means that if you pay an engineer $200k in a year, in tax-world you only had $40k of real expense that year, even though you paid them $200k.

So the effect is that it makes engineers much more expensive, because normally when a company hires an engineer, like they spend on any other expense, they can at least think "well, they will reduce our profit, which reduces our tax obligation," but in this case software engineers are special and aren't deductible in the same way.

In the case of the $200k engineer, you deduct the first $40k in the first year, then you can expense another $40k from that first year in the second year, the third $40k in the third year, and so on through the fifth year. So eventually you get to expense the entire first year of the engineer's pay, but only after five years.

The effect is that companies wind up using their scarce capital to loan the federal government money for five years, and so engineers become a heavy financial burden. If a company hires too many engineers, they will owe the federal government income tax even in years in which they were unprofitable.

These rules, by the way, don't apply to other personnel costs. If you hire an HR person or a corporate executive, you expense them in the year you paid them. It's a special rule for software engineers.

It was passed by Congress during the first Trump administration in order to offset the costs of other corporate tax rate cuts, due to budgeting rules.

Nice idea! Not sure I'm missing something obvious, but it really needs an archive, or "play random" button.

I think the core value prop of Airbnb is (or should be) to provide a different experience than a hotel. It may have been "cheaper than a hotel" at one point and idk what the numbers are on how people are using it but in my experience it excels for larger groups or for people just looking for a more house-like experience than a hotel. Being able to stay in a nice house with a bunch of friends in any city is an amazing thing they made a lot more accessible.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to just shop on price and then compare the experience to booking a hotel room, it's totally different.