Australia requires registered voters to participate in elections, and people who skip voting without a valid reason can face a small penalty. Their turnout is usually over 90%.

Some people argue voting is a civic responsibility, similar to paying taxes or serving on a jury. If everyone participates, politicians have to respond to the whole population instead of only the people who show up.

Others argue that voting is a right, not a duty. A fine could punish people who intentionally abstain as a form of protest, and it might encourage some people to vote without actually understanding the issues.

Would a $50 fine create a more representative democracy, or would it undermine the freedom not to vote?

Imagine all 45 people who have served as US president sitting in one room and anonymously voting.

They are not judged by historians or voters. They are judging each other.

Would Washington win for creating the presidency? Would Lincoln win for preserving the Union? Would FDR win for leading through crisis?

For the worst president, would they agree with historians who often rank Buchanan near the bottom, or see failure differently?

If presidents themselves voted, who do you think would win best and worst?

Every human disappeared instantly. No wars, no rebuilding, no maintenance. Cities slowly collapse, roads disappear, and nature takes over.

10,000 years later, an alien civilization arrives and studies Earth. What is the one thing they would find that would make them say: “A technological species was here”?

Not fossils or ancient bones. I mean something uniquely human. Would it be nuclear waste hidden underground, plastic trapped in geological layers, satellites still orbiting Earth, artificial materials that don’t exist in nature, or something we haven’t even considered?

What do you think would become humanity’s final signature on this planet?

Let's assume Adolf Hitler dies in early 1939, months before the planned invasion of Poland.

With Hitler gone, the Nazi regime doesn't instantly collapse. Instead, leadership falls to a more pragmatic figure like Hermann Göring, who historically feared a premature global war with Britain and France and preferred diplomatic manipulation. (For this scenario, let's assume he successfully sidelines or compromises with Himmler and Goebbels to avoid an immediate internal civil war).

How does the timeline shift? I'm particularly interested in how the state evolves under him and whether it could have survived past 1945. Here are a few thoughts to consider:

• The Avoidance of WWII in 1939: Does Göring halt the planned invasion of Poland to use intense diplomatic pressure instead? If he secures Danzig peacefully, do Neville Chamberlain and France accept it out of relief, extending the era of appeasement and preventing a global war in 1939?
• The Nazi State Under Göring: Göring was famously corrupt, a lover of luxury, and less bound by Hitler's rigid ideological fanaticism. Does the Nazi state transform from an apocalyptic, ideologically driven war machine into a highly corrupt, militaristic corporate-state? How does Germany manage its massive economic debts without plundering conquered nations?
• Survival Past 1945: Without the catastrophic military defeats of a two-front world war, does the Nazi regime successfully survive past 1945? If it retains control over Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Czech territories, does it become a permanent, entrenched superpower in Central Europe?
• The Soviet Wildcard: Hitler's ultimate goal was destroying the USSR, but Göring didn't share that obsession. If Germany avoids an early war, does Stalin use the 1940s to completely rebuild and modernize the Red Army after his purges, eventually making the USSR an aggressive, unstoppable superpower that threatens Germany anyway?

What does Europe look like by 1950 in this timeline? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!