While planning our wedding, my wife and I experienced an unexpected pain point: guest management. People don't read the website you spend hours putting together, and instead message you with all types of questions. Or you end up chasing them down for their RSVP. And their meal choices. The invite sits on their inbox — or worse, spam — until you reach out personally. Not to mention how bad the UX of current tools is. They make the whole process feel harder. So I built an alternative: replied.me Your own wedding concierge. It saves you hours of coordination: follows up with every guest, answers their questions, and locks your headcount by your deadline. It can even communicate with your vendors on your behalf, create artifacts for the day-of, and reach out after the wedding to collect photos people took.

Finally

Linear CEO @karrisaarinen: "I took a break this summer from paying attention to AI. I thought that when I came back, I'd feel left behind. But when I came back, I realized that nothing has really changed. There's new models, there's new techniques, there's new agents. But in the end, making great products, increasing revenue, and building the business—it's still hard. It's clear the tools are getting better, you can do more, you can do it faster. But I think the more important question is: are we actually making better things with these tools? Are our teams getting better with these tools? I don't think that answer is clearly yes. There's a lot of emphasis now on toolmaking and using tools and building systems. But I think in the end, as product people, our job is to make something great."

The scale of what Canada is building is hard to overstate: --Churchill Falls = roughly 9 nuclear reactors worth of clean power. --Pacific Link = an oil export route approaching the consumption of the entire UK. --LNG Canada Phase 2 = enough gas to equal roughly half of Canada’s domestic consumption.

People are too quick 😂

Actually crazy how implementing a consistent sleep and wake time solved 80% of my ADHD. The remaining 20% (hardest part) is discipline and good habits.

Every CEO is now faced with two options in front of them 1/ Integrate yourself into the AI platforms and potentially risk getting dis-intermediated by OpenAI, Anthropic or Meta 2/ Build a castle around your platform and product, ban any API calls and potentially risk giving up hundreds of millions in revenue and web traffic Don’t think anyone really knows what the right answer is, but the path you take determines the entire future for your business Not a fun time to be a decision maker at a large company right now

this is going to feel similar to streaming services, and having to pay different providers just because of unique ip sitting behind them

Fixed it

does Benioff ever miss?? Game changing announcement

Capacity isn’t intentionality. An AI system with the capacity to cause damage is merely a risk. Intentionality is a vector that, so far, has to be directed towards a target by humans. The jump from “AI can hack” to “AI will kill us” is a narrative violation. If scientists believe AI-driven extinction to be the future outcome, then it’s their responsibility to walk us all through the logical steps they took to conclude that. Without a compelling case detailing this, all the fearmongering is nothing but emotional manipulation at scale aimed at power capture.

The only way they can reach forecasted valuations is by stealing all corporate data and IP at their disposal.

AI doesn’t need to kill us. We’ve done it ourselves.

Still can’t believe there are people who genuinely defend tipping culture in North America. One of the most refreshing things about travelling in Europe is not being haggled for tipping at every single pay terminal.

Start of a new era

In 2028, the median person on Earth will live on more than $10 a day for the first time in history (figures adjusted for inflation and for differences in purchasing power across countries). In the last decade alone, the share of people above this threshold has risen from 41.3% in 2016 (3.11 billion) to 48.7% in 2026 (4.03 billion). Think about that for a second: we have pushed nearly 900 million people over this threshold in ten years, around 90 million people a year (slightly above the population of Turkey). At the very bottom, we have also seen progress, though slower. In 2016, 12.6% of the world lived below $3 a day (947 million people). In 2026, the figure fell to 10.0% (826 million). This fall is harder to achieve because the poorest countries also have fast population growth. As fertility falls there, and I think it is already falling, we will cut poverty much faster. You are probably thinking that $10 a day is not a demanding threshold. True. But in 1990, yesterday in historical terms, only 1.42 billion people lived above it. And this is not just China: 2.6 billion people have crossed the $10 line. On the other hand, in 1990, 2.20 billion people lived below $3 a day. I checked these figures today because I start teaching Global Economic History at Penn this Wednesday, and I wanted to update the numbers I use. As Joel Mokyr instructs us: “The responsibility of economic historians is to remind the world what things were like before 1800. Growth was imperceptibly slow, and the vast bulk of the population was so poor that a harvest failure would kill millions. Almost half the babies born died before reaching age 5, and those who made it to adulthood were often stunted, ill and illiterate.” (“What Today's Economic Gloomsayers Are Missing,” 2014.) This will be my first lesson to the students on Wednesday: we live in times of historically unprecedented prosperity, and, by and large, things are getting much better every year.

Canada’s brain drain is brutal. I can count 15 founders I know personally who left. (per @UWaterloo researchers, it’s specifically the top percentile of students that leave). No one is asking me for a solution, to be clear, but I have one suggestion. The simple, obvious, Canada-must-change this immediately: uncompetitive marginal tax rates. Many Canadians don’t realize that Canada asks high earners and founders to pay top marginal rates at much lower income levels than even the highest-tax U.S. jurisdictions like NYC or California. The top marginal tax rates in Canada are above 50% in Ontario (53.5%), Quebec (53.3%), and BC (53.5%), with Alberta slightly below (48%). Meanwhile, even in the highest tax jurisdictions of California and NYC, the top marginal tax rate sits lower at 50.3%, and 52%, respectively. But it gets worse. Much worse. These high marginal rates in the U.S. hit at commensurately high levels of income ($25M in NYC, $1M in Cali). Canada’s highest marginal rate? That started at the highest federal income threshold of $218K for the 2025 tax year. $218K!!!??? (In CAD too. Thats about $157K in USD). That means the marginal tax rate for similarly-earning Americans in the highest-tax jurisdictions like California and NYC is actually around 45%. So Canadians pay significantly higher tax rates at lower levels of income. And it’s not close, even when compared to the highest-tax U.S. jurisdictions (which themselves are losing hundreds of thousands of builders). It’s obviously more nuanced than just tax, but this is one way to start solving this problem. Let the brightest, hardest-working and highest-earning Canadians keep more of what they earn. Cc @lucyhargreaves4

this should be a five alarm fire for policymakers in canada 517 american companies started by canadians. $414 billion raised. almost 9 in 10 of them went to school in canada incredibly, 216 of these founders went to waterloo…. and half of these companies were started in the last 2 years!