rt8994

I ship a small Android app and kept doing the same manual job: download a competitor's new APK, unpack it, and work out what actually changed — features, onboarding, paywall structure, which growth SDKs they picked up. It ate a weekend each time and I still missed things.

So I built the thing that does it. It reads each shipped release and diffs it against the previous one.

Five teardowns are published, free, no signup:

• Turbo AI deleted their session-replay vendor entirely. OpenReplay went from ~400 dex references to zero.
• Bible Chat shipped new premium copy to only half their locales. Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese fall back to English.
• RIZZ moved to server-configurable paywa

Open Source solved the licensing problem by standardising around different flavours of licenses like Apache, GPL, Creative Commons etc.

You could still go and create your own License but its standard practice to just pick one that suits best for you (if you’re not trying to do something weird)

Now you don’t have to go through each different license to know what is/isnt allowed.

Why haven’t we come to something similar for privacy policies. Is there some obvious reason I’m missing?

PS: If there isn’t a good reason for it, I’m interested in creating a schelling point of sorts for this, please DM if this sounds interesting

the FED is targeting 2% inflation, how would that ever happen if the FED itself guarantees an increase of 5.5% basically risk free?

The fed is targeting a 2% interest rate while keeping its own rate at 5.5%, how would that work?

I have a really dumb question about how money works. Let’s say I produce wheat that costs $X per Kg to make. I sell it at a profit of, say Y% to everyone in the market who needs what. I use this money to buy other goods and services I need.

Now there’s someone who’s selling clothes, which I need. This person also needs wheat.

If I use money to buy these clothes, I can buy Y% less clothes, as opposed to using wheat (which this person would accept), and both of us would end up with more clothes and wheat respectively than if we had used money. Therefore is money an inefficient way to transact? Or am I missing something basic?

I understand the use-case for money in general and how it’s too

It intuitively makes sense that every extra dollar makes me less happy. However, unlike other goods, shouldn't money be an exception to diminishing marginal utility? As a rational economic actor, I want to have infinite optionality on the goods and services I can buy and having more money helps with it. Why does income then feel less valuable beyond a point?

Hey, Came across this headline - "Former a16z GP Katie Haun raises $1.5B Web3 fund, the largest debut fund by a female VC"

A bunch of people were saying that the female VC part was unnecessary. This is the largest fund by any VC.

I get why it sucks to make this headline gendered for Katie, she's accomplished something that's insanely cool and the gendered lens takes the conversation elsewhere. But highlighting the gender makes subsequent achievements by women in this field that much more normal? Also chips away at some bias too? Or am I missing something?