While it is totally nonsensical, as as suggestion as a business practice, I will indulge in the idea as if you are being genuine.

You cannot give a gender more money to do the same job with the criteria being a specific gender. That is blatantly illegal.

It seems to me like this would also be illegal. You are giving one gender an option you aren't giving the other gender. And you are making it so one gender has more potential customers than the other, which is effectively giving them more money.

But whether the law is enforced is a whole other question.

> You are giving one gender an option you aren't giving the other gender.

A simple solution then is to make the feature a `custom request for the same sex driver/passenger`. Then males can request males and females can request females. Or they (driver/passenger) can simply use it as

The more of this kind of natural discrimination we make illegal the less meaningful public markets will be and the more people will choose to:

1) Just not socialize

2) Do things under the table.

Let people pay the premium for what they want. Sometimes there are good reasons for it. Stop pretending to have an apodictic understanding of both the world and morality.

It's not blatant - "a driver not threatening to women" is not a job both genders can do. It's very easy to delineate. We have hundreds of jobs like that already that are quite mundane and legal, like worker at Victoria's Secret.

But in reality, would much more consistently be automated by a single playwright script.

True, there are plenty of libs already available to do such an automation if you are (or can hire a) dev.

But for non-technical folks, agentic browsers seems like a good UX to build such and many more automations.

He rewrote history to hide it?

He admits it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44516104

Gives a whole new meaning to its always DNS.

Regardless no one can make you buy anything

It bypasses a lot of the checks they do on the initial site when submitting to ad networks. It also allows custom redirections based on user agent, potential ip location, etc. Common in phishing.

TTS is a very common initialism for Text-to-Speech going back to at least the 90s.

Yeah, it's a very common initialism for people who work in the space, and have some context.

So? Acronym soup is bad communication.

I miss glossaries.

Good writing rules can still be used even for repo READMEs where the first time an acronym is used it is spelled out to show what the acronym means. Too many assumptions being made that everyone is going to know it. Sometimes the author can be too inside baseball and assumes anyone reading their README will already know about the subject. Not all devs are literature majors and probably just never think about these things

An AI-powered browser extension that shows on hover the most likely acronym meaning, based on context you say?

I've used this one for a hot minute a few weeks ago: https://lumetrium.com/definer/

It also can be configured to use Ollama or an API key from other providers (OpenRouter included) and from what I gather the default prompt can be changed too.

Sadly it's closed source.

I have to agree with you. Anything that requires an initiation (a chat in this case) by the user is inherently not "zero-click".

So zero click is only if you do not use a mouse on your computer or if it works without turning the computer on?

No, zero click requires no interaction from the user. For a hypothetical example simply having a phone on a cellular network and being susceptible to base-band attacks. No interaction needed, just existing.

Agree with other comments here - no need for the user to engage with anything from the malicious email, only to continue using their account with some LLM interactions. The account is poisoned even for known safe self initiated interactions.

Amen.

An optimist I see.