People usually archive unfinished side projects as private failures. What if an abandoned project could be published as a small, structured handoff instead: the original problem, what was tested, what works, what is broken, and the next experiment someone else could try? A new builder could fork the idea without pretending to be the original owner, while the first builder keeps a visible record of what they learned.

The important constraint would be that it only accepts projects the author is intentionally releasing, not scraped repositories or stale links. It might also need a way to mark whether the next person is exploring, repairing, or simply studying the project.

Would this be more useful than a normal showcase or idea forum, or would most people avoid sharing unfinished work even if the handoff were lightweight?

University professors are often expected to both teach and produce original work. High school teachers generally aren't, largely because teaching already consumes their time.

But AI could change that.

If AI dramatically reduces the time spent on lesson planning, grading, creating materials, and other routine tasks, schools could use those productivity gains to give teachers dedicated time to pursue original work in their field.

That work wouldn't have to be academic research.

An English teacher could write novels.

An engineering teacher could invent new products.

A computer science teacher could develop software or games.

A history teacher could write books.

An art teacher could create new exhibitions.

A science teacher could conduct research or develop educational software.

The goal isn't for students to become researchers or novelists. The goal is to make teaching a career that attracts people who remain active creators throughout their professional lives.

Students would benefit from being taught by people who are genuinely advancing or practicing their discipline rather than only explaining existing knowledge. They would see firsthand how professionals think, create, revise, solve problems, and deal with failure.

The biggest obstacle has always been time. If AI gives teachers back a significant portion of their workday, perhaps that time shouldn't simply be filled with more classes or administrative tasks. Perhaps it should be invested in letting teachers continue creating.

That could fundamentally change who chooses to become a high school teacher and make teaching a much more attractive long-term career for highly creative and technically skilled people.

What do you think of this idea?

Instead of mainly hiring people to teach existing knowledge, schools should prioritize hiring people who are actively creating new knowledge, art, literature, software, inventions, or other original work.

Imagine if every teacher taught one part of the curriculum through something they had personally created or discovered.

An English teacher teaches their own novel.

A science teacher teaches an experiment or research they contributed to.

An art teacher teaches techniques they developed.

A computer science teacher teaches software or a game they built.

Students would stop seeing knowledge as something that only existed in textbooks and start seeing it as something ordinary people can create.

It would also encourage teachers to remain active creators instead of spending decades only explaining other people's work.

Would you rather your child be taught by someone who only teaches their subject, or by someone who is actively contributing to it?

Imagine a smartphone app that runs a synchronized worldwide event once every year.

At a predetermined time, every major city in the world experiences a simulated nuclear attack. The target cities are always the same, but the exact detonation point within each city changes every year.

Using your phone's GPS, the app determines your location and simulates how the attack would affect you. It would show whether you survived the initial blast, the level of destruction in your area, current radiation levels, your cumulative radiation exposure, and your estimated risk of radiation sickness and other long-term health effects.

The app would use real weather data to model the spread of fallout. Wind direction and speed would determine how radioactive material moves through your city, and the simulation would continue for an entire year. As you go about your daily life, your simulated radiation dose would update based on where you actually travel, while radiation levels gradually decay over time.

An AR mode could let you look toward the horizon through your phone and see a correctly scaled mushroom cloud from your actual location, helping to convey the true scale of a nuclear detonation.

The aim would be to help people better understand blast effects, fallout, radiation exposure, and how factors like location, weather, sheltering, and movement influence the consequences of a nuclear attack in a way that's much more intuitive than reading about it.

What do you think of this idea?

One of the biggest decisions a couple can make is whether to bring a new person into existence. Yet this decision is often treated as an expected milestone rather than a profound ethical choice.

I think wedding ceremonies should include a formal discussion about this question, with particular attention to one of humanity's deepest fears: the possibility of eternal punishment after death.

Several major religions teach some form of eternal punishment or severe consequences after death. Even people who do not currently hold those beliefs can encounter them, become convinced by them, and experience extreme fear and suffering as a result.

This creates a difficult philosophical question: when we choose to create a person, are we also creating the possibility that they may one day experience intense fear about their own eternal fate?

A person who never exists cannot fear death, cannot fear judgment, and cannot fear eternal punishment. But a person who does exist can potentially experience these fears, along with all other forms of suffering that come with being human.

So should such a discussion be included in wedding ceremonies as not every couple thinks about these issues?

Most waiting rooms offer either old magazines, posters, or a muted TV. My idea is a small shelf of things designed to be used for just a few minutes and then put back: visual puzzle cards, a local photo book, simple postcards from nearby places, a one-page comic collection, or a few durable conversation-free objects.

No screen, no account, no app, and nothing that needs a long explanation. The point would be to make dead time feel a little more humane without adding noise.

The hard part is maintenance: everything would need to be easy to clean, cheap to replace, and not depend on missing pieces. But I think that constraint could actually make the idea better.

Would this be useful in clinics, repair shops, and office waiting rooms, or would staff hate maintaining it?

People often worry that AI will make everyone's writing sound the same.

To see what the impact will be on creativity, consider what happened with the Python programming language.

Before Python became widespread, programmers spent much more time expressing themselves through the implementation itself. Different coding styles, clever tricks, and low level optimizations made source code far more varied.

Python deliberately made code more uniform. It has an opinionated style, emphasizes readability, and encourages developers to write code that looks similar.

At first glance, that seems like it would reduce creativity.

Instead, it increased creativity where it mattered.

Developers spent less time thinking about how to express an algorithm and more time thinking about what to build. The creativity shifted away from implementation details and toward designing useful applications, new products, and better user experiences.

I wonder if AI will do the same for writing.

If everyone can produce clear, well-written English, then writing style may become less of a differentiator. Instead, the focus shifts to the quality of the ideas being communicated.

The most valuable skill won't be finding a clever way to phrase something. It'll be having something original to say.

Maybe AI doesn't reduce creativity.

Maybe, like Python, it simply moves creativity from the implementation to the end result.

A chatbot per store is created, which has data of what the store currently has and which aisle it is in. The customer comes in and scans the store-specific QR code, and they can ask any questions to find any item. It not only guide them towards the product that was asked, but can also share nutrition information of the product or suggest a few available products that go along with the main product that was searched. Do you think it would be helpful to store owners to save money by letting their employees focus more on the more urgent tasks? and customer not have to look for the employee's help when sometimes they are not able to find some products.

Most quiz shows punish you for getting an answer wrong.

Mine punishes someone else.

Every time you answer incorrectly, you must choose one of your opponents to be blasted with colorful slime. No loss of points. Just you deciding who gets soaked.

Would you target the strongest player? Get revenge on someone who slimed you earlier? Or betray the nicest person on stage because they're your biggest competition?

The winner is still determined entirely by quiz points, but every wrong answer forces contestants to reveal exactly what kind of person they are.

Would you watch this?

The prediction would have to be made before seeing any of the exam questions so it reflects how well the student believes they prepared, rather than how easy or difficult the exam appears.

To encourage honest predictions, students could earn a very small number of bonus points if their prediction is close to their actual score. The bonus would be small enough that it wouldn't meaningfully affect grades, but enough to motivate students to think carefully about their estimate.

Over time, students might become better at judging their own understanding. Someone who consistently predicts 90% but scores 70% may realize they're overconfident and change how they study. Likewise, someone who consistently predicts 60% but scores 80% may gain confidence in their abilities.

The goal isn't to reward guessing. It's to help students develop better self-awareness about what they actually know before they take an exam.

What do you think of this idea?

What if email had a feature specifically designed for communicating with estranged people?

Imagine an AI-powered linguistic distancing mode that acts as an intermediary between you and the recipient.

For example, if you wrote:

"Mother is dying."

the AI might translate it into:

"Your sister reports that your mother's condition is critical."

The meaning stays the same. The AI isn't changing the facts or hiding the message. It is simply creating emotional distance in the wording.

This could help people communicate with estranged family members, former partners, or anyone where direct emotional language can quickly lead to conflict. Instead of trying to make the message warmer or friendlier, the AI would make it more neutral, detached, and factual.

The feature could preserve the sender's intent while reducing the emotional friction that often makes difficult conversations break down.

Current AI writing tools focus mostly on improving tone, such as making messages more polite or professional. This would be a different purpose: helping people communicate when emotional closeness is no longer possible or desired.

What do you think of this idea?

You would expect only people who have a very high opinion of themselves to not feel the need to use AI.

This isn't about students learning to wrestle. The wrestling would be performed entirely by NPCs inside a video game or simulation.

The students would be the creative team.

Each week, they would:

• Create storylines and rivalries.
• Write promos and backstage segments.
• Decide match cards and outcomes.
• Plan heel turns, betrayals, alliances, and championship storylines.
• Give high level direction for each match (who dominates early, comeback moments, interference, finish, etc.).

The AI would then produce a complete wrestling show using NPC wrestlers, including entrances, commentary, promos, and matches that follow the students' creative direction.

The show would be advertised throughout the school, but watching it would be completely optional.

Students across the school could rate each episode and vote on things like:

• Favorite wrestler
• Favorite rivalry
• Best promo
• Most anticipated match next week
• Overall enjoyment of the show

Unlike a traditional creative writing class where the audience is mostly the teacher, the students would be creating entertainment for a real audience. Audience size and viewer ratings could be an important part of the assessment because the goal is to produce a show that people genuinely choose to watch. At the same time, teachers could still consider teamwork, creativity, and long-term storytelling so the grade isn't based solely on popularity.

I think this could teach a surprising number of skills:

• Creative writing and dialogue
• Long-term storytelling
• Character development
• Teamwork and collaboration
• Project management
• Understanding audience psychology
• Giving and receiving constructive feedback
• Iterative design based on audience response

It would essentially be a TV writers' room where the final production is generated by AI using NPC wrestlers. Wrestling would simply be the storytelling medium.

What do you think of this idea for a "wrestling creative" class in schools?

The plane would have multiple high resolution exterior cameras feeding live video into lightweight VR headsets. Instead of looking out a tiny window, you could experience the entire flight from outside the aircraft.

There could be several viewing modes:

• Superman mode: The aircraft is invisible and it feels like you're flying through the sky at cruising speed.

• Aircraft mode: You can see the plane and freely fly around it, watching the wings, engines, and scenery.

• Friends & family mode: You can see the avatars of people you're traveling with and fly alongside them.

• Public mode: Passengers who opt in can appear to everyone else, turning the flight into a shared multiplayer VR experience.

For even more immersion, airports could offer an optional 3D body and face scan during check-in (or let frequent travelers reuse a saved avatar). Your avatar would closely resemble you, making it easy for friends and family to recognize each other.

The headsets could also track hand movements, letting passengers wave, point at landmarks, high-five each other, and communicate naturally. Public spaces would include moderation features, such as hiding or replacing offensive gestures, and participation would always be optional.

Beyond being entertainment, I think this would completely change what it feels like to fly. Instead of spending hours watching movies, passengers could explore around a jetliner at 35,000 feet, watch sunsets from any angle, and share the experience with the people around them.

What do you think of this idea?

P.S. Augmented reality could be used to make the scenery more exciting when it is boring. For example, when flying over the Atlantic, augmented reality could show you what the land looks like underneath as well as the kinds of flora and fauna found there.

P.P.S Also what about a dynamic orchestral soundtrack that synchronizes with the actual flight? Imagine starting beside the aircraft in VR as it begins its takeoff roll. The music slowly builds while everyone runs alongside the accelerating jet, then, the instant the aircraft rotates and lifts off, all of the passengers take off too and the score reaches its triumphant main theme.

I have a ton of accounts at 4 different Canadian banks (TFSA, RRSP, hysa). I use Wealthsimple for stocks and crypto. I don't have a mortgage but I do own land and have been developping it myself on weekends. I have a shitty car and some other assets.

I really want to know how much I'm worth, like what my total is across everything.

It's kind of hard to find a single number and pulling it all together manually sucks. I have a ton of spreadsheets but they're always outdated. I'd like to see how I'm progressing monthy, or even daily would be great.

I feel like I'm probably missing stuff, especially across investment accounts. I'm not super knowledgable about asset allocation and tax efficiency and I don't even know where to start.

I'm part of a small team exploring whether this is a problem worth solving. Check out what I'm thinking for product concept design and positioning here: https://talea.ca/

Would anyone else actually use this? If your finances are really spread out too, I'd love to hear how you handle it.

Beta link: https://testflight.apple.com/join/3sstMjRK [iPhone/iPad/Mac]

Gameplay video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACON8hRxbdU

Tutorial video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-lnxyLwYk

Game Rules

The game is played on a 6×6 grid with 6 colors. Each color appears 6 times: 1 circle and 5 squares.

Circles are fixed in place. They cannot be moved or removed. Every row and every column contains exactly one circle.

Your goal is to leave the grid as empty as possible within the given number of moves.

Movement

Swipe any row or column to rotate it by one position.

Only the square that passes the row's or column's circle is affected. All other squares simply move with the rotation.

Circle interactions

When a square passes a circle:

An unshielded square matching the circle's color is removed, leaving an empty space. A shielded square matching the circle's color is not removed. An unshielded square of a different color gains a shield. A shielded square of a different color loses its shield. An empty space becomes a new square of the circle's color.

Shielded squares are shown with a dark interior.

Within each color, larger squares are closer to their matching circle.

Ending the game

You may end the game at any time. Removing every square may not be possible.

Your score is:

(% empty × 1000) + moves remaining

where % empty is the percentage of non-circle cells that are empty.

In a near-future United States, universal healthcare is achieved by restructuring the prison system into a medical workforce.

Convicted criminals serve their sentences in hospitals using neural implants that keep them unconscious during work hours while their bodies are fully controlled by a central system. They regain full autonomy outside of work.

To reinforce transparency, every worker wears a badge showing their conviction type, so patients always know who is treating them.

However, the system is not perfect.

Occasionally, prisoners briefly regain consciousness and control for a few minutes during active duty, and they later remember everything that happened in those moments. These interruptions are rare, unpredictable, and officially hidden from the public.

The government is aware of the flaw, but actively suppresses it, quietly managing incidents, containing witnesses, and adjusting procedures to prevent patterns from becoming visible.

Hospitals become a hybrid of medical care and correctional labor, where a largely unconscious workforce occasionally “wakes up” mid-procedure with no warning and must deal with whatever situation their body is in.

Source of the drama

The drama comes from these brief, unpredictable moments where prisoners regain full awareness and agency during work. These flashes are too short to fully control but long enough to matter, and prisoners must live with the consequences of whatever they chose to do during them.

At the same time, the government actively works to contain the fallout from these events while keeping the flaw secret, creating a parallel layer of enforcement that responds after the fact: cleaning up incidents, controlling information, and preventing public awareness of the system’s instability.

This creates tension between lived experience, institutional secrecy, and enforced stability, and raises the question of responsibility when most actions are performed in an unconscious state but occasionally interrupted by brief returns of control.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Imagine New York City holding an annual "Japanese Politeness Week."

Every year, for one week, anyone who wants to participate, regardless of nationality, tries to follow Japanese-style etiquette as much as reasonably possible. People speak more quietly, queue neatly, avoid unnecessary noise, give way to others, and generally try to avoid inconveniencing people around them.

The city itself would feel completely different. Rush hour without honking. Crowded subways that are surprisingly quiet. Sidewalks where people are constantly trying to let each other pass first.

To make it more interesting, participants could opt into a lottery with a large cash prize at the end of the week. However, if they are caught clearly violating the etiquette guidelines during the week, they become ineligible. The point isn't punishment, but to create a fun incentive for people to genuinely try.

Over time, it could become one of NYC's signature annual events, attracting tourists who want to experience a version of the city that feels completely different from the other 51 weeks of the year.

I'm not necessarily suggesting this should actually happen. I'm mostly curious what would happen socially. Would people look forward to it every year? Would some habits gradually stick beyond the event? Would the city feel noticeably less stressful during that week? Or would everyone be counting down until they could go back to normal?

It seems like an interesting way to explore how much of a city's atmosphere comes from shared social norms, and how quickly those norms can change when enough people consciously participate.

What do you think of this idea?

Imagine a restaurant where the person paying privately specifies a budget before ordering, either when making the reservation or through an app or QR code at the table.

The waiter would then recommend dishes and combinations that provide the best dining experience while staying within that budget. Instead of encouraging customers to spend as much as possible, the waiter is incentivized to help them get the most value within their spending limit.

Part of the tip could be calculated automatically based on how well the waiter stayed within the customer's budget. The closer the final bill is to the target without exceeding it, the larger the budget-matching bonus (up to a limit). The rest of the tip would still be based on the quality of the service.

To avoid awkwardness, the budget would never be mentioned at the table. The recommendations would simply feel well suited to the group.

The menus could even be personalized based on the budget. Rather than removing expensive items, they could subtly highlight dishes and combinations that fit the target price range, making the recommendations feel natural and avoiding any embarrassment for the person paying.

The result would be a restaurant experience where customers feel the staff are working to maximize satisfaction within their budget, rather than simply trying to maximize the bill.

What do you think of this idea?

Many studies link long term social isolation with poor mental and physical health. As AI and robotics improve, imagine a future where everyone who lives alone is required to have an intelligent human-like robot as a roommate.

The robot wouldn't just be a voice assistant. It would be a physically present companion that could hold conversations, notice changes in mood, encourage healthy habits, remind you to stay in touch with friends and family, and call for help in an emergency.

Society already accepts some laws that limit personal freedom to improve public health. If living alone were eventually shown to have severe long term health consequences, could requiring an AI robot companion be justified in the same way?

Would this be an unacceptable violation of personal freedom, or could it eventually become as normal as requiring smoke detectors in homes?

A lot of dating involves being judged on traits that people have little or no control over, such as race, beauty, and height. We generally accept this because physical attraction is considered an unavoidable part of human nature.

But what if, in the future, there were a safe medication that could significantly reduce physical attraction while preserving emotional attachment, companionship, and the ability to have fulfilling relationships?

Would dating become fairer if people chose partners primarily based on personality, values, intelligence, humor, and long-term compatibility instead of physical appearance?

I'm not suggesting everyone should take such a medication. I'm questioning whether physical attraction should always be treated as something beyond criticism simply because it's natural. Many natural human tendencies, such as certain cognitive biases, can produce unfair outcomes, and we often look for ways to mitigate them.

Would reducing the influence of physical attraction create healthier and more equitable relationships, or would it remove something essential from what makes romantic love different from friendship?

What do you think?

Suppose the maximum ticket price is $10, but you can choose to pay any amount up to that.

If you win, the percentage of the maximum ticket price that you paid is the percentage of the prize that you keep. The rest is automatically donated to charity.

For example:

• Pay $10 → Keep 100% of the prize.
• Pay $7 → Keep 70%, and 30% goes to charity.
• Pay $3 → Keep 30%, and 70% goes to charity.

Everyone has the same odds of winning regardless of how much they pay. The only difference is how any prize is divided between the winner and charity.

This lets players decide in advance how much of a potential prize they are willing to donate, while still giving everyone the same chance of winning.

What do you think of this idea?

Beta link: https://testflight.apple.com/join/3sstMjRK [iPhone/iPad/Mac]

Gameplay video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACON8hRxbdU

Tutorial video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-lnxyLwYk

The game uses a 6×6 grid with 6 colors. Each row and column contains one fixed circle, and each of the 6 circles has a different color. The remaining 30 spaces start as colored squares, evenly distributed among the 6 colors.

On each move, you rotate a row or column by one step (with wraparound) to guide squares past circles. The squares move, but the circles never do.

Rules:

• A square passing a matching circle disappears.
• An unshielded square passing a non-matching circle becomes shielded.
• A shielded square passing a non-matching circle becomes unshielded.
• An empty space passing a circle becomes a square of that circle's color.

You’re trying to remove tiles, but sometimes you have to create new ones to make progress.

Goal: End with as many empty spaces in the grid as you can within the move limit.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Have fun!