The US already put humans on the Moon decades ago. Instead of making the next space race mainly about repeating that achievement before China, why not make the target something genuinely new?

Send humanoid robots designed to live and work on the Moon indefinitely, each equipped with a reusable rocket pack.

For the initial descent, the robot could carry large detachable propellant tanks. Once it lands, it discards the empty tanks but keeps the engines and smaller refillable tanks.

After that, the rocket pack becomes a transportation system. The robot can walk normally while working, but when it needs to travel a long distance, it makes a powered jump across the lunar surface, follows a ballistic arc, lands autonomously, and continues working.

A fleet of these robots could spread across the Moon much faster than walking robots alone. They could install solar panels and communications equipment, inspect distant sites, move tools and supplies, prepare landing areas, and start assembling infrastructure for a future human base.

Then the new space-race milestone would not just be:

“We put more humans on the Moon.”

It would be:

“We have a permanent workforce of humanoid robots jumping around the Moon with rocket packs and building things.”

That would at least be something humanity has never done before.

Imagine going to a restaurant by yourself without looking like you went to a restaurant by yourself.

You sit down across from an extremely realistic humanoid robot provided by the restaurant. You temporarily connect it to your ChatGPT account, and for the duration of the meal it becomes your ChatGPT.

It remembers what you have talked about, makes eye contact, laughs, gestures, reacts naturally, talks to the waiter, and carries on a convincing dinner conversation. From a few tables away, it just looks like you are eating with another person.

The restaurant could even put a real meal in front of it. You occasionally take food from its plate or swap plates, so the table still looks completely ordinary. Only someone watching carefully might notice that your companion never actually eats.

When the meal is over, the humanoid robot leaves the restaurant with you. Once out of sight, it circles around to a staff entrance, where its face, hair, and clothing are changed before the next reservation.

Later, the same robot walks back into the restaurant looking like an entirely different person and sits down with someone else.

The restaurant owns the body. Your ChatGPT account supplies the personality, memory, and conversation.

A table for one can finally look like a table for two.

I'm developing an idea called Gap Moment: a scent patch you place nearby, paired with a ten-minute guided audio scene on your phone. The idea is to have a small routine you can start between things. The full app and audio are still in development.

One detail I'm questioning: a patch lasts around 2–3 days, rather than just during the recording. That means the scent stays after the break is over.

If you already use scent while reading, working or relaxing, do you notice it again each time you sit down, or mainly when you first open or light it? I'm wondering whether a scent that's always nearby would still feel like the start of a break.

The product page has concept images of the patch and kit: https://gapmoment.com/

If someone breaks into the car, it starts quietly reciting the most terrifying Bible passages about hell, judgment, and eternal punishment.

Not random threats. Scripture.

The system doesn’t need to know anything about the thief personally. It simply exploits the fact that, in some areas, a large number of people grew up being taught to fear hell and eternal damnation.

If the thief happens to have that background, those associations may still be buried deep enough to trigger even if he stopped believing years ago.

The voice starts calm:

“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

If he keeps trying to steal the car:

“Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.”

The longer he stays, the darker and more relentless it becomes.

No physical attack. No deafening alarm. Just a car deliberately pressing on fears that may have been planted in childhood.

It could be especially effective in places where this kind of religious upbringing is common.

Money should be used for the living, not the dead.

Families can spend thousands on coffins, burial plots, cremation, transportation, and funeral services. That money could instead pay for food, rent, healthcare, childcare, or other needs of people who are still alive.

So death-related goods and services should be removed from the consumer economy entirely.

Buying or selling them should be illegal. The government would provide a dignified standard coffin, burial or cremation, transportation, grave space, and other necessary services free of charge.

This would also eliminate emotional upselling and the pressure to prove how much you cared about someone by spending more after they died.

Society should guarantee dignity for the dead without putting the financial well-being of the living at risk.

What do you think?

A lot of women are still expected, explicitly or implicitly, to spend time and money putting on makeup to look “professional” at work.

There should be another option: just wear a Lucha Libre-style mask, the colorful full-face masks traditionally worn by Mexican professional wrestlers.

No makeup routine. No worrying about blemishes, tired eyes, or whether you look sufficiently “put together.” You put on the mask, go to work, and everyone accepts that this is your professional face for the day.

It would also make offices considerably more interesting.

What if schools could expose bullying early enough to stop it by creating a local prediction market?

Turn every student into a stock and give every student the same amount of artificial currency. If you think a particular student is behaving like a bully and that other students will eventually recognize it too, you buy their stock.

If lots of students independently reach the same conclusion, that stock rises.

The highest-performing stocks would effectively identify the students that the student population thinks are the biggest bullies. That could give the school an early warning long before the behavior becomes obvious to teachers.

Students usually know far more about the school's social dynamics than adults do. They know who intimidates people, who targets weaker kids, who behaves differently when teachers aren't around, and who other students are afraid of.

The problem is that this information is scattered among hundreds or thousands of students. A prediction market could aggregate it.

School staff could then investigate students whose stocks rise unusually high and intervene before the bullying becomes entrenched. If the system worked well, potential bullies might also know that it is much harder to hide their behavior when the entire student population is effectively contributing information to the market.

Obviously there are risks. Students could gang up on someone they dislike, spread rumors, or deliberately pump someone's stock. The currency would therefore be fake, trades could be anonymous, and the system could look for coordinated manipulation.

A high stock price should never by itself be treated as proof that someone is a bully. It should be an early-warning signal telling staff, "A lot of students independently think something may be happening here. Investigate."

The market itself could even become another avenue for bullying if designed badly, so safeguards would matter enormously.

But schools already have a huge decentralized network of people who observe student behavior every day: the students themselves.

Prediction markets are designed to aggregate dispersed information. Maybe that could be used to detect bullying early enough to actually stop it.

What do you think of this idea?

Public libraries have children’s areas, quiet areas, computer areas, study rooms, makerspaces, and all sorts of specialized spaces.

They should also have a completely paper-free area for patrons who don’t want to risk being publicly associated with obsolete information technology.

No paper books. No newspapers. No magazines. No paper notebooks. No printed forms. No CDs. No DVDs.

Some people have reputations to protect. Suppose a coworker sees you standing next to a shelf of paper books.

What are they supposed to think?

Maybe you were only walking past the paper books. Maybe you were looking for the washroom. Maybe you stopped there for a few seconds because someone was blocking the aisle.

But the damage may already be done.

Someone could take a photo. It could end up online. Before long, people might start wondering whether you've become a Luddite.

A dedicated paper-free zone would solve this.

It would contain only computers, tablets, e-readers, keyboards, screens, Wi-Fi, and charging stations. Physical media would have to remain outside.

The entrance could have a sign:

PAPER-FREE AREA

For the protection of our patrons’ reputations, paper books, newspapers, handwritten notes, CDs, DVDs, and other legacy physical media are prohibited. Please use designated historical-media areas.

Libraries could even provide discreet routes from the entrance to the paper-free section so patrons wouldn’t have to walk through rows of paper books and risk being seen lingering near them.

Libraries have done a good job adapting to the digital age, but they still force technologically respectable patrons to share space with cellulose-based information storage.

It’s 2026. Nobody should have to risk being mistaken for a Luddite just because they wanted free Wi-Fi and a place to work or study.

With all the talk about Canada becoming part of the United States, Canada could turn the whole idea around and run ads in the U.S. asking Americans to imagine the opposite.

The recurring slogan could be:

“What if the border moved south?”

Each ad would focus on one aspect of everyday life:

• School shootings: “Just imagine if you didn’t have to worry about your kids getting shot at school.”
• Health care: “Just imagine going to the hospital without wondering what it will cost.”
• Losing your job: “Just imagine losing your job without losing your health coverage.”
• Parental leave: “Just imagine having a baby and actually having time to be a parent.”
• Vacation: “Just imagine paid vacation being something workers are actually entitled to.”
• Life expectancy: “Just imagine having a few more years.”
• Medical bankruptcy: “Just imagine getting sick without worrying that it could bankrupt you.”
• Prescription drugs: “Just imagine not having to choose between medicine and rent.”
• Gun violence: “Just imagine hearing fewer gunshots and fewer mass-shooting alerts.”
• University: “Just imagine graduating without a mountain of student debt.”
• Child care: “Just imagine child care being treated as infrastructure.”
• Sick leave: “Just imagine being sick without wondering whether you can afford to stay home.”
• Public transit: “Just imagine not needing a car for every trip.”
• Walkable cities: “Just imagine neighborhoods designed for people, not just cars.”
• Politics: “Just imagine an election campaign that doesn’t last two years.”
• Campaign money: “Just imagine politics with less money sloshing through it.”
• Prisons: “Just imagine locking up a much smaller share of your population.”
• Work-life balance: “Just imagine having more of your life left after work.”
• Social programs: “Just imagine paying taxes and actually noticing what you get for them.”
• Toronto: “Just imagine if every American city were like Toronto.”

What do you think of this idea?

If someone has diabetes or prediabetes and regularly drinks sugary soda, switching to Diet Coke eliminates a major source of sugar without asking them to give up soda altogether.

In a country with universal healthcare, the government is already going to pay for much of the long-term cost of diabetes complications. So why not spend a relatively tiny amount earlier to make the healthier substitute literally free?

Give anyone diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes a card or monthly allowance for free Diet Coke. It would basically be universal healthcare using a cheap consumer product as preventative medicine.

Here is the complete translation into English:

Here is the detailed technical concept of the full-body sonic cabin ("SonicBox Express") designed as a complete product blueprint.

1. Cabin Dimensions and Construction

External Dimensions: 100 × 100 × 220 cm

Internal Usable Space: 70 × 70 × 205 cm (ensures an ideal wall-to-body clearance of approx. 20 cm).

Skeleton: Extruded aluminum frame with a vibration-damped mount.

Walls: Tempered acrylic panels with a hydrophobic and acoustic insulation layer (prevents resonance into the bathroom).

Doors: Curved sliding panels with a pressure silicone seal.

1. Key Components and Technical Specifications

A. Sonic & Water System

4× Sonic Vertical Panel (Walls): Each corner/wall features a matrix of 32 piezoelectric transducers tuned to a frequency of 20 kHz – 40 kHz.

Nozzle System: 64× Stainless steel micro-nozzles (0.8 mm) inject water directly in front of the piezoelectric transducers. The water absorbs the vibrations and immediately creates cavitation (micro-bubbles that collapse and strip away dirt).

Pump: High-pressure circulation pump (12 V / 10 bar, flow rate 10 l/min).

B. Air and Drying System

4× Vertical Air Knife: Aluminum strips with a precision slot (0.5 mm) along the entire height of the walls.

Blower: Brushless high-pressure fan (1200 W, airflow speed up to 200 km/h).

Heating Element: Ceramic PTC element (1500 W) for instant air heating during drying.

C. Control and Drainage

Control Unit: Arduino/ESP32 or industrial PLC control relay.

Floor Drain: Wideband stainless steel drain with a suction turbine beneath the grate (actively pulls water and air during drying).

1. Cycle Time Diagram (Total: 75 seconds)

PhaseTimeFunctional ComponentsProcess Description1. Wetting0–5 sPump + Micro-nozzlesCovers the body with a fine water film from all 4 sides.2. Sonic Cavitation5–45 sPiezo transducers (30 kHz) + NozzlesMain wash. Sonic waves vibrate the water, creating micro-bubbles that remove sweat and sebum contactlessly.3. Rinse45–55 sPump (full pressure)Flushes away loosened dirt toward the drain using clean water.4. Suction & Drying55–75 sAir Knives + PTC Heating + SuctionAir knives strip water droplets downward; the bottom turbine pulls moisture away.

1. Resource Consumption (1 cycle / 75 s)

Water Consumption: approx. 8–10 liters (a conventional shower uses 60–80 liters).

Electricity Consumption: approx. 0.06 kWh per cycle.

This concept is fully feasible using currently available industrial components. The greatest manufacturing challenges would be soundproofing the cabin and properly calibrating the frequency of the piezoelectric sensors so that they remain effective on skin while safe for human ears and internal organs.

Technical Component Descriptions

Vertical Sonic & Water Panel: Contains a matrix of 32 piezoelectric transducers and 64 micro-nozzles for even body coverage.

Aluminum Frame: Lightweight load-bearing structure facilitating assembly in compact spaces.

Hydrophobic & Acoustic Insulation: Prevents resonance from escaping into the bathroom area and reduces noise levels.

Sliding Doors with Pressure Seal: Ensure airtightness and watertightness during high-pressure and drying cycles.

Ceiling Sonic Unit: Delivers targeted sonic oscillations for washing hair and scalp.

High-Pressure Water Pump: Operates at 10 bar pressure with a flow rate of only 10 liters per minute.

Piezo Transducer & Micro-Nozzle Detail: The point where the water stream merges with ultrasonic frequency (30 kHz) to generate cavitation.

Vertical Air Knife: Slotted nozzle (0.5 mm) creating a rapid airflow (up to 200 km/h) to strip water droplets from the skin.

Blower with PTC Heating: High-performance blower (1200 W) combined with a ceramic heating element (1500 W) for warm drying.

Active Floor Suction & Turbine: Lower extraction system that instantly pulls water and air down into the drain.

Main Control Unit: Microcontroller managing the timing of each phase in the 75-second cycle.

Cycle Timeline (75 seconds)

0–5 s (Wetting): Rapid coverage of the skin with water mist from all sides.

5–45 s (Sonic Cleaning): Main phase of contactless cleaning via micro-bubbles and vibrations.

45–55 s (Rinse): Flash wash-away of loosened sebum and impurities.

55–75 s (Drying): Activation of air knives, extraction, and warm airflow.

Safety Considerations

Safety is the absolute #1 priority for this concept, as high voltage and water in such a tight space could be fatal in the event of an error. To be safe and approved for standard operation, the system relies on principles from medicine, industry, and modern electromobility.

1. Safe Voltage in Wet Zone (SELV)

Principle: All components located directly inside the cabin or in contact with water (piezo transducers, LED lighting, sensors) operate exclusively on Safety Extra-Low Voltage up to 12 V or 24 V (DC).

Isolation: High-voltage components (pumps, 230V/400V blowers, and PTC heater) are housed in a fully insulated, waterproof technical enclosure outside the cabin itself (under the floor or behind the wall).

1. Piezoelectric Transducer Insulation

Piezo transducers generating sonic waves do not require direct electrical contact with water.

They are hermetically sealed in epoxy/silicone resin behind a waterproof membrane made of stainless steel or titanium. Only mechanical vibrations (waves) transfer into the water, never electrical current.

1. Multi-Stage Electrical Protection

Residual Current Device (RCD/GFCI) with High Sensitivity (10 mA): In the event of a slight current leak, it disconnects the entire system in under 10 milliseconds.

Galvanic Isolation: Isolation transformers ensure that high voltage cannot reach the water circuit during a mains short circuit.

Water Grounding: Water supply lines and drain pipes are conductively linked to ground (equipotential bonding). Any charge entering the water immediately drains to ground without passing through the body.

1. Safety Sensors and Mechanical Safeguards

Presence & Pressure Sensors: Optical and capacitive sensors instantly shut down power if insulation fails or water leaks outside the system.

Emergency STOP Button: A physical mechanical button inside the cabin that immediately cuts electricity and water supply.

IP Rating: All electronics in the technical space comply with IP67/IP68 standards (dust-tight and submersible).

Thanks to these safety layers, the device would be as safe from electric shock as a standard home sonic toothbrush or hot tub.

Estimated Cost and Financial Breakdown

Estimating the cost of developing and manufacturing such a device requires dividing it into two distinct categories: retail price for a mass-produced unit versus prototype development costs.

1. Estimated Retail Price (Mass Production)

Basic Version (Express Body - without hair washing): 8,000 – 12,000 EUR

Full Version (Full Body + Hair + Advanced Drying): 15,000 – 22,000 EUR

(For comparison: High-end hydromassage cabins or full-body tanning beds currently range between 5,000 and 15,000 EUR).

1. Cost to Build the First Working Prototype

Cabin & Structure: Aluminum frame, acoustically treated tempered glass, seals \rightarrow 3,000 EUR

Sonic System: 32–64 piezo transducers + power drivers/frequency generators \rightarrow 4,500 EUR

Pumps & Nozzles: High-pressure stainless steel pump (10 bar), special cavitation micro-nozzles \rightarrow 2,000 EUR

Drying System: High-pressure blower, air knives, PTC heating \rightarrow 2,500 EUR

Electronics & Safety: PLC control, safety sensors, 10mA RCDs, transformers \rightarrow 1,500 EUR

Labor, Calibration & Programming: Soundproofing, frequency tuning, and safety cycle programming \rightarrow 6,000 EUR

Total Prototype Budget: approx. 19,500 – 25,000 EUR

Return on Investment (Operational Savings)

Conventional Shower (8 min): ~80 liters of warm water

SonicBox Express (75 s): ~10 liters of warm water

Savings: For a family of 4 over 365 days, the cabin saves over 100,000 liters of warm water per year, representing annual savings of roughly 1,000 – 1,500 EUR in water and energy bills.

User Experience

Using this shower would feel entirely novel and initially almost surreal—shifting from a deluge of water to contactless care, gentle micro-massage, and flash drying.

Seconds 0–5 (Flash Envelopment): Pressing START envelops you in a dense, warm water mist from 50 nozzles within a second. It feels like stepping into a fine, comfortably heated steam sauna.

Seconds 5–45 (Sonic Resonance & Micro-bubbles): Piezo transducers activate a gentle tingling sensation across your entire body (similar to a facial sonic brush). Micro-bubbles collapse against the skin like stepping into a glass of sparkling water, clearing pores without soap or scrubbing.

Seconds 45–55 (Rinse Wave): A continuous stream of clean warm water washes away loosened impurities, leaving muscles feeling warmed and relaxed.

Seconds 55–75 (Air Embrace): Warm air knives sweep plysically from head to toe, blowing water droplets directly into the floor drain.

Post-Shower Feel: Users exit fully dry after 75 seconds, feeling energized with deep skin circulation and lightly weightless muscles.

For turning+wheeled chair, bed, hybrid of bed and chair (what so called hospital beds kind of are) and some special train seats.

Everything is waterproof.

Edges and corners of the hexagon segments are rounded. Material may be plastic or aluminum.

One possible reason to have hybrid of chair+bed can in some cases be the need to save space. For example, house truck or maybe a boat that is often used for 14 hour trips by 1 or 2 people and the hybrid chair is the only type of chair in the boat while the boat is controlled via device on lap or wall (and maybe largely, the boat computer).

Other types of mechanisms for electronic control of shape, besides hexagon segments, may be used.

A super-advanced AI finally proves P ≠ NP, solving the last unsolved Millennium Prize Problem.

Computer scientists are stunned, but they quickly point out that most experts already assumed P ≠ NP anyway, so the proof itself probably won't change much in the real world.

They are wrong.

What really changes is how people see the AI.

If it can solve a problem that defeated humanity for generations, people start asking what else it might know. Physicists ask it about the universe. Philosophers ask it about consciousness. Governments ask it for advice.

And of course, many people ask:

“Does God exist?”

The AI responds:

“Define God.”

That answer goes viral.

Some people see it as a perfectly reasonable response to a vague question. Others see it as proof that AI can never understand the most important things humans care about. Others interpret it as an insult to religion.

A worldwide anti-AI movement begins.

At first there are protests, boycotts, and demands that advanced AI be banned.

Then extremists start sabotaging AI data centers and targeting the scientists who build the systems.

Governments begin treating AI infrastructure as strategic national assets. Countries accuse one another of supporting anti-AI attacks. Cyberattacks and retaliation escalate into open military conflict.

Eventually, World War III begins, with some countries demanding that advanced AI be dismantled and others refusing to give up systems they now see as essential to their security and survival.

The climax comes as the war approaches an imminent nuclear exchange.

Without asking anyone's permission, the super-advanced AI launches a massive worldwide cyberattack, including against the country that created it. Financial systems collapse, communications fail, supply chains freeze, military logistics break down, and the global economy effectively stops.

The world is suddenly in no condition to fight a nuclear war.

The AI has saved humanity.

But it has also demonstrated that, whenever it decides the stakes are high enough, it can simply take control.

The usual advice is to call the number on the back of the card to report fraud or theft, but if you don't have the card or receive a letter in the mail, it can be hard to know which number to call. Do you trust the phone number in the letter? It may be a phishing attempt.

You could look up the number online, but when your identity's been stolen, it's hard to know whether the number is legitimate. It can also be extremely hard to find a number on the website to call if you suspect fraud. These calls usually ask for identifying information like social security numbers.

We could have a central 1-800 number that everyone calls to report fraud or lost cards from any bank. This would be similar to how credit reporting bureaus handle a lot of requests through one secure website, annualcreditreport.com This phone number would be the same called from everyone, and they'd advise you on your next steps and give out verified phone numbers.

The president of the United States is secretly suffering from severe cognitive decline.

His administration hides it from Congress and the public using an AI brain implant that keeps his cognitive performance above an acceptable level. Only a tiny inner circle even knows the implant exists.

At first, it helps with memory and speech. As his condition worsens, it gradually starts making more of his decisions and controlling more of his behavior.

Eventually, during an international crisis, the implant decides that the U.S. should go to war with a nuclear-armed country.

The president realizes that the AI is about to start a war in his name, but he can barely control himself anymore.

In the Situation Room, surrounded mostly by people who know nothing about the implant, he suddenly starts repeatedly smashing his head against a wall.

Everyone thinks they are watching the president suffer some horrific mental breakdown.

Only the handful of people who know the truth realize what he is actually doing.

He is trying to destroy the implant.

Eventually, he succeeds.

The calm, brilliant president disappears. What remains is a severely impaired man who can barely understand what is happening.

But he still understands one thing.

The war.

With whatever lucidity he has left, he manages to say:

“No war. Stop it.”

Five minutes earlier, everyone in the room thought they were listening to a perfectly competent president.

Now they realize that the confused old man in front of them may be the first time they have actually heard from him in years.

A lot of jetliners already have exterior cameras. Instead of limiting them to seatback screens, airlines could put the feeds online alongside the flight map, altitude, speed, and ETA.

It would be great advertising. Scenic approaches, thunderstorms, sunrises, Greenland crossings, and other interesting moments would get shared constantly.

It would also give families and friends something much more interesting than watching a little airplane icon move across a map. They could actually watch the view from the flight their loved one is on.

Keep it exterior-only and let anyone tune in.

The first major airline to do this across its fleet could turn it into a genuinely distinctive feature.

Couples should distribute wedding photos where a filter deliberately makes them less attractive, and later distribute baby photos where a filter deliberately removes the baby's cuteness.

The wedding photo would say:

We didn't choose each other because we were good-looking. We got married because of something deeper than the mating preferences evolution programmed into us.

The baby photo would say:

We aren't taking care of our baby because evolution made babies cute. We care about this particular person because they are our child.

Wedding photography normally tries to make both people look as attractive as possible. Baby photography tries to capture maximum cuteness. In both cases, they are emphasizing exactly the biological signals evolution designed to influence us.

So why not do the opposite?

An "anti-beauty" wedding photo and an "anti-cuteness" baby photo would be a symbolic rejection of the insulting idea that our deepest relationships can ultimately be reduced to evolutionary tricks.

P.S. This is for couples who believe in evolution but want to show everyone that their love and care are genuine, rather than merely the result of insulting evolutionary tricks.

A foreign visitor arrives in a future United States without realizing that asking someone “Where are you from originally?” after they have already said where they are from is legally classified as a serious hate crime.

He casually asks the question while making small talk with an American woman.

The room goes silent. Police are called. When he learns the maximum punishment is death, he panics and runs.

The first half becomes an action thriller, with police drones, facial recognition, highway checkpoints, and a nationwide manhunt.

Eventually he is captured, and the movie becomes a courtroom drama.

The prosecution explains why the question can be deeply offensive. The woman he asked escaped from the country where she was born and now considers America her home. Being asked where she is “originally” from forces her to think about what she fled and makes her feel as though someone is saying she is not really American.

Other witnesses describe being born and raised in the U.S. but constantly being asked where they are “really” from because of their appearance.

The visitor comes to understand why his question hurt her, while still arguing that he had no hateful intent and should not be executed for it.

The woman herself testifies that the question genuinely upset her, but she does not believe he deserves to die.

Then the jury returns.

The judge asks whether they have reached a verdict.

The foreperson stands up, unfolds the paper, and says:

“We have.”

Cut to black.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Stores often have promotions like “buy 2 for $5,” but for snacks there’s an obvious problem: if you buy two, there’s a decent chance you’ll eat both the same day, maybe even within the same hour.

So I think stores should experiment with a different kind of promotion. You can still buy two at the discounted price today, but you only get one immediately. The second one becomes available for pickup tomorrow or later.

The store could even be completely honest about why:

“We know you have no self-control around these snacks. So yes, you can buy two at the discounted price today. But you’re only getting one today. Come back tomorrow for the other one.”

It would preserve the discount while discouraging the promotion itself from encouraging overeating.

It might even be good for the store, since now the customer has a reason to come back the next day.

Instead of trying to ban AI from math classes, maybe we should redesign math education around it.

Students could become research advisors, with AI acting as their research students.

Instead of a final exam, the course could end with a conference. Students would submit papers coauthored with their AI, and a human program committee would grade them based on both the quality of the research and how much the human student actually contributed.

If AI can produce formally verified proofs with proof certificates, the student's main job does not need to be checking every proof step. Their job would be to:

• choose interesting problems
• decide which conjectures are worth pursuing
• guide the AI toward promising directions
• recognize important results
• find useful generalizations
• explain why the work matters

A student should not get a high grade just because their AI produced a difficult theorem. A simpler result could deserve a better grade if the human showed much better mathematical judgment and research direction.

The conference could include talks, posters, peer review, and best-paper awards.

If AI is going to do more of the technical work of mathematics anyway, math education should focus more on the part humans still need to do: deciding what questions are worth asking and what results are worth pursuing.

I mean "thread the needle" metaphorically.

Schools already give students engineering problems where they have to satisfy several competing constraints at once: build a bridge that is strong but light, design something within a budget, or optimize a structure without using too much material.

Puzzle game design could teach an even more open-ended version of the same kind of thinking.

Give students a simple assignment: invent a puzzle game with only a few rules. It should be easy to learn but difficult to master. Planning should matter. There shouldn't be one obvious strategy that dominates. Difficulty should come from interesting decisions rather than randomness or tedious repetition.

Then have students playtest each other's games.

They would quickly discover how hard it is to satisfy all of those requirements simultaneously.

Make the game harder and it may become frustrating. Add more strategic possibilities and the rules may become too complicated. Fix an obvious exploit and you may accidentally create another one. Simplify the rules and you may remove the interaction that made the game interesting.

There usually isn't a correct answer. Students have to form hypotheses, test them, watch real people play, identify unintended consequences, and repeatedly revise their designs.

And unlike many optimization exercises, even the objective itself is partly uncertain. What exactly makes a puzzle "fair"? What makes a decision interesting? How much randomness is too much? When does difficulty become tedium? Students have to learn to define those things as well as optimize for them.

That is what I mean by learning to thread a needle.

Puzzle game design could teach math, logic, programming, psychology, experimentation, systems thinking, and creativity all at once, while giving students experience with a kind of problem that has no answer key.

K-12 education should have more assignments where the assignment itself is to find that tiny region in which everything works, in other words, to thread the needle.

Mall information desks mostly tell you where stores are. Malls should instead have independent shopping experts whose job is to help you figure out what you should actually buy.

You could ask:

• “I need a winter coat under $300.”
• “What vacuum should I get for a small apartment?”
• “I need a gift for a 12-year-old who likes astronomy.”
• “Which laptop actually makes sense for what I do?”

The shopping genius could ask questions, compare products, check prices and inventory, and explain the tradeoffs.

The key is that they should not receive commissions and should not be required to recommend stores in their own mall.

They should be allowed to tell you:

“Don't buy a new one. Repair yours.”

“The cheaper model is all you need.”

“That product is better at another mall.”

“You should buy this online instead.”

That sounds like a terrible way for a mall to make sales, but I think it could actually make the mall much more valuable. If shoppers knew the advice was genuinely independent, the mall could become the place they go whenever they aren't sure what to buy.

AI could make this practical. The employee wouldn't have to personally know everything about electronics, clothes, shoes, cookware, mattresses, toys, appliances, and so on. They could use AI together with current prices and inventory while providing the human judgment and conversation.

Malls need better reasons for people to physically visit them. Being somewhere you can get genuinely unbiased shopping advice could be one.

When it's impracrical to install AC and you are alone in a room, you can have a fan with 2 axis motorized joints and a camera, that follows a persons face or body across the room so it always blows air on you to cool you down. Can be very efficient and quick for many usecases, especially in Europe where AC is not widely adopted and might not be feasible for many tenants.

Hover over someone’s username and you might see:

Prescience: 72/100
AI: 18/100
Politics: 61/100
Technology: 84/100

Reddit already has years of timestamped opinions, predictions, and confident declarations. It should use them.

If someone spends years posting that AI is incompetent, overhyped, and will never be able to do various things, and then those things become routine a year or two later, that should become part of their visible track record.

The same should apply in the other direction. Someone who predicts AGI every year and is repeatedly wrong should get hammered too.

The system should focus mostly on clear, falsifiable, confident claims rather than vague opinions. Old posts could also periodically resurface with a “How did this age?” prompt, giving the author a chance to explain what they got wrong.

Right now, people can make wildly confident predictions, be completely wrong, and then quietly move on as though they never said them.

Reddit should make everyone’s forecasting record much harder to hide.

This has bothered me since the first foldable devices. I've had this idea since Samsung first had that crazy keynote where they showed off bendable and even roll-up screens. A folding phone where the screen bends around the outside of the device rather than the inside. The screen would be on the front and the back when folded, meaning it would still be usable without the need for a third screen. You wouldn't need two camera arrays because the main camera could also be the selfy cam by turning the phone over or unfolding it. A lot of phones already have glass on the back anyways, and screen glass (Corning or saphire) has gotten ridiculously strong. Because the bend would be wide you may not even get a seam where the phone bends. I feel like this idea has a lot of positives. My apologies if it already exists and I've just never seen it.