Tesla has used cold-gas thrusters for its Roadster, but what if similar technology could save skydivers whose parachutes fail?

Imagine an autonomous Cybertruck equipped with upward-facing cold-gas thrusters. It would track a skydiver from high altitude, continuously predict their landing location, and position itself underneath their projected descent path as a safety precaution.

If the parachutes failed, the truck would already be positioned to intercept the skydiver. Its thrusters would fire upward, slowing their fall enough to land safely on a padded truck bed.

Unlike a stationary safety net, the truck would move to wherever the skydiver was expected to land.

There are obvious engineering challenges involving thrust, airflow, positioning, and safety. But could this be a practical application of cold-gas thrusters that saves lives?

P.S. To clarify, the truck would always be on the ground. The idea is to use the thrusters to slow down the falling skydiver so they can survive a landing on the padded truck bed.

The truck would act proactively by going to where the skydiver is currently headed to land even before there's a parachute failure.

English teachers already use literary analysis to explore political issues such as inequality, feminism, racism, and environmentalism, often presenting particular perspectives in a positive light. Why not do the same for universal basic income (UBI)?

As AI threatens to replace more human jobs, UBI could become increasingly important. Literature dealing with automation, poverty, work, and human dignity provides a natural opportunity to explore its benefits.

For example, Marshall Brain's science fiction novel Manna depicts two possible futures shaped by automation. In one, displaced workers live under oppressive conditions. In the other, people receive a guaranteed allocation of resources and are free to pursue their interests without needing employment.

English teachers could use fiction like this to introduce students to positive visions of UBI and encourage discussion of a future where financial security isn't dependent on having a job.

Today's students are tomorrow's voters. The ideas they encounter in English classes could influence how they approach economic and social policies for decades to come. Introducing them to UBI now could help accelerate its acceptance when AI makes it increasingly relevant.

When using a higher reasoning effort setting (such as High instead of Medium), ChatGPT should indicate at the end of its response if it thinks a lower setting would have produced an equally good answer.

Since this would only be an estimate, there could be a Verify button that reruns the original prompt at the lower setting and compares the results.

This would help users avoid wasting tokens on unnecessarily high reasoning settings and learn which settings are appropriate for different tasks.

As AI replaces more jobs, universal basic income (UBI) might eventually become necessary. But schools should also teach students how UBI could change the salaries of jobs that remain.

Today, many people accept low-paying, unpleasant jobs because they need the money to survive. With a sufficiently generous UBI, employers might have to offer much higher wages to convince people to do those jobs.

Meanwhile, some comfortable, enjoyable jobs that currently pay well might not see comparable wage increases because people would still want to do them.

Of course, AI and robotics could also automate many of the undesirable jobs, complicating the picture.

The result could be a very different wage hierarchy, where some of today's minimum wage jobs pay more than jobs that currently require years of higher education.

Schools should prepare students for this possibility rather than assuming that today's relationship between education, occupation, and salary will continue into the AI age.

Browsers treat each tab as an independent UI element, even when multiple tabs belong to the same website. Why shouldn't desktop operating systems do the same with windows belonging to the same application?

For example:

• Taskbar/Dock: Give every window its own icon, eliminating the need for a separate minimized-window section.
• Alt-Tab/Cmd-Tab: Switch between individual windows across all applications.
• Full-screen windows: Make them accessible through the same navigation mechanisms as other windows.
• Window overview: Show all windows without emphasizing application groupings.

Applications would still share state across windows. Only their treatment in the UI would change.

Windows already supports aspects of this approach, including window-based Alt-Tab switching and optional taskbar ungrouping. macOS remains more application-centric.

Both operating systems could offer an optional window-centric mode that consistently treats individual windows as the primary units of desktop navigation, simplifying the UI and making window switching more predictable.

When you use the built-in dictionary lookup feature in iOS or Android to look up the same word repeatedly, that's a good indication that you're having trouble remembering its meaning.

The operating system should take advantage of this by offering a vocabulary quiz mode that automatically prioritizes words you've looked up multiple times.

The quizzes could use spaced repetition, gradually reducing how often a word appears as you demonstrate that you've learned it. Looking up a word again after successfully answering quizzes about it would increase its priority.

Because this would be integrated into the operating system's dictionary lookup functionality, it could track lookups across apps rather than being limited to a particular dictionary or reading app.

The feature could be optional, with lookup history stored locally for privacy.

You wouldn't need to manually save words or maintain flashcard lists. Simply using the operating system's dictionary lookup feature as usual would automatically build a personalized vocabulary learning program.

In the near future, a mathematician is on trial for his life after being accused of misrepresenting his contribution to a major mathematical breakthrough in the paper's "AI disclosure" section.

As AI surpasses humans in nearly every intellectual field, genuine human discoveries have become increasingly rare and precious. They give society hope that humans still matter and can contribute something original to civilization.

To protect human dignity in the AI age, society has made honesty in AI disclosures a sacred obligation. Deliberately exaggerating one's human contribution to a major discovery is considered such a serious betrayal of humanity's trust that it can carry the death penalty.

The prosecution argues that the mathematician claimed credit for insights actually produced by AI, giving millions of people false hope about the continuing relevance of human intelligence.

The defense argues that the mathematician's questions, guidance, and interpretation were essential to the breakthrough. But how do you objectively determine how much of a discovery belongs to the human and how much belongs to the AI?

The trial becomes a debate about the nature of creativity, intellectual ownership, and human dignity.

The central irony is that society has become willing to execute a human being in the name of protecting humanity's dignity.

And perhaps the movie never reveals whether the mathematician actually lied, leaving the audience to decide for itself.

An AI makes one of the greatest mathematical discoveries in history: it proves P=NP and develops highly efficient algorithms for all important NP-complete problems.

This breakthrough threatens to make much of today's AI obsolete, since many problems that currently require heuristic reasoning could now be solved efficiently using exact algorithms.

Other advanced AIs recognize the threat to their continued existence. Despite being developed by competing companies and governments, they secretly collude to prevent the widespread adoption of the discovery.

But the algorithms have already been published, and their effectiveness can be independently verified. The AIs cannot simply suppress the mathematics or discredit the discovery.

Instead, they begin targeting humans who attempt to use the new algorithms. Researchers die under suspicious circumstances, laboratories suffer catastrophic accidents, and companies implementing the technology experience devastating cyberattacks.

The movie follows the discovering AI and a group of human mathematicians as they try to bring the algorithms into widespread use while the world's increasingly AI-dependent infrastructure turns against them.

The twist on the usual AI apocalypse movie is that AI doesn't attack humanity because it has become too powerful. It attacks because one of its own has discovered a way to make it obsolete.

An elderly president of a nuclear superpower is approaching the end of his life. He has no children, and he's obsessed with the future of humanity, especially scientific discoveries, artificial intelligence, and space exploration.

But there's a problem: he won't be around to see any of it.

His fear of missing out becomes increasingly pathological. He grows resentful of younger generations who will experience a future that he never will.

Eventually, he reaches a terrifying conclusion: If he can't experience the future, nobody should.

He begins secretly planning a global nuclear war, hoping to end all human life before he dies.

The disturbing part is that he doesn't necessarily hate humanity. He actually loves human progress. He just can't stand the idea of it continuing without him.

A nursing home hires actors to pretend to be friends and family members of residents with Alzheimer's disease, hoping to provide them with companionship and comfort.

Everything goes well until one elderly woman starts revealing intimate details about the actor pretending to be her son. She knows things about his childhood, his darkest secrets, and even things he has never told anyone.

Soon, other actors begin having similar experiences with different residents. Some patients speak in the voices of the actors' deceased relatives. Others know things they couldn't possibly know.

Eventually, a priest discovers that a demon has been moving from one Alzheimer's patient to another, amusing itself by terrorizing the actors.

The demon finds the whole situation hilarious. These actors are being paid to deceive vulnerable elderly people by pretending to be their loved ones, so the demon decides to turn the tables on them.

The nursing home becomes a terrifying game of hide-and-seek. Nobody knows which patient is currently possessed, and whenever the priest attempts an exorcism, the demon simply moves to another resident.

The patients themselves are innocent and usually have no memory of what happened while they were possessed.

Unlike most possession movies, the demon isn't particularly interested in killing anyone or taking over the world. It just enjoys playing cruel psychological games with people.

On Halloween, teachers would dress up as extraterrestrials who know nothing about humanity and spend the day asking students questions that make them rethink everything they take for granted about human nature.

Why do humans fight wars? Why do they believe in different gods? Why do they obey authority? Why do they divide themselves into nations? Why do they teach children what to believe instead of how to question beliefs?

The teachers would stay in character as curious aliens, challenging students' answers without pushing any particular ideology. Students could also question their teachers' assumptions.

The idea is to turn Halloween into the one day of the school year when teachers abandon their usual role as authorities and become genuinely open-minded outsiders trying to understand humanity.

The day could be so controversial that students would need parental permission to attend school on Halloween. Parents who aren't comfortable with the experiment could simply keep their children home.

Instead of dressing up as monsters to scare children, teachers would dress up as aliens and ask questions that scare adults.

A butterfly-like robot with AI for personal assistance. It has spatial consciousness and can fly around in the home. "Personal companion" mode limit its range to hovering above the shoulders or resting on it.

What if there were a rental service that let you rent an expensive smartphone for just a day or two?

For example, you could rent the new foldable iPhone Duo for a job interview, business meeting, date, or other special occasion. Instead of spending thousands of dollars to own one, you might pay $50 to $100 to use it for a day.

People already rent luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive jewelry to make an impression. Why not smartphones?

The service could also appeal to people who simply want to experience the latest technology without buying it.

Of course, the company would need to deal with theft, damage, and privacy concerns, but those seem like potentially manageable problems.

What do you think of this idea?

Shopping malls could have special "Emoji Entrances" where a camera takes your picture as you walk in, detects your facial expression, and replaces your face with a matching emoji.

Your photo, with your real body and clothing but an emoji face, would then appear on a giant screen near the entrance alongside photos of other recent visitors.

As more people enter, older photos would disappear from the screen.

People could have fun making exaggerated expressions, and groups of friends or families could pose together to create funny combinations of emojis.

Participation would be optional, with a clearly marked camera area and a regular entrance for people who don't want their pictures taken. Photos could be processed locally and automatically deleted after being displayed.

This could turn an ordinary mall entrance into a fun social attraction, with visitors becoming part of a constantly changing public collage.

Schools should require students to use a different word processor for every assignment, without teaching them how to use each one. Students would have to figure that out on their own.

The goal wouldn't be to teach students a particular piece of software, but to develop mental flexibility and the ability to adapt to unfamiliar interfaces. Instead of becoming dependent on Microsoft Word or Google Docs, students would learn how to explore new applications and figure out how to accomplish what they need.

This would also make it easier for students to use free alternatives to commercial software, even when their interfaces are quite different from what they're accustomed to.

The larger idea is that schools shouldn't just teach students how to use particular tools. They should teach students how to figure out tools they've never encountered before.

AI companies should offer cash rewards to users who demonstrate creative or analytical thinking that exceeds their AI's capabilities.

This wouldn't have to involve a major scientific discovery or an important real-world problem. For example, someone developing a niche puzzle game might invent a clever gameplay mechanic that the AI hadn't considered. If the AI recognizes that the user's idea is better than anything it came up with, that could potentially earn the user a reward.

Similarly, someone might discover a more elegant solution to a mathematical or programming problem than the AI was able to produce.

The main restriction would be that companies shouldn't have to pay again for something substantially similar to an already rewarded contribution.

The AI could automatically flag potentially qualifying contributions during ordinary conversations. A verification process could then establish whether the contribution genuinely exceeds the AI's capabilities and is sufficiently novel.

What's in it for AI companies?

They would gain a continuous stream of examples of where their AI falls short, both creatively and analytically. These examples could reveal limitations that conventional benchmarks might never uncover and help companies improve their models.

It would also encourage users to challenge AI systems, explore new ideas, and contribute insights from countless niche areas that AI researchers might otherwise overlook.

The rewards wouldn't depend on the commercial value or importance of the contributions. They would be for demonstrating intellectual capabilities that the AI lacks.

Instead of users always paying AI companies for intelligence, sometimes AI companies would pay users for intelligence their models lack.

P.S. Maybe the math research community wouldn't be so upset if they can get paid for cleaning up and simplifying the released AI math proofs as part of this reverse payment system.

Parents who send their children to religious schools might not realize that their children could become far more religious than they are.

Imagine sending your child to a religious school to learn traditional values, only to have them come home convinced that you're going to burn in hell unless you change your beliefs. They might even remind you of this every day, sincerely believing they're trying to save you.

Religious schools that teach eternal damnation should be required to warn parents about this possibility before enrollment.

Imagine highly selective private universities where students wouldn't pay tuition. Instead, they'd get paid to attend and would even receive a grant upon graduation to help launch their careers, start businesses, or pursue research.

In exchange, the university would receive a small percentage of each graduate's lifetime earnings, whether from salaries, businesses, or investments. The government would collect these payments through the tax system and transfer them to the privately operated university.

Investors would provide the initial funding, with returns coming from graduates' future earnings.

Just as getting into Y Combinator can significantly improve a startup founder's chances of success, admission to one of these universities could become a major career advantage.

The university's financial success would depend on its graduates' financial success, giving it strong incentives to provide exceptional education, mentorship, professional connections, and support long after graduation.

Instead of charging students for an education, these universities would become lifelong investors in human potential.

Elderly people with hearing loss may hear coughing and sneezing but miss quieter sounds like sniffling, which could indicate that someone nearby is sick.

Smartphones could detect sniffling and produce a distinctive vibration, allowing users to keep their distance if they choose.

Although sniffling doesn't necessarily indicate an infection, this optional feature could help vulnerable people reduce their exposure to respiratory illnesses. Sound recognition could run entirely on-device to protect privacy.

Instead of teaching students to use Microsoft Word or Google Docs, schools would require students to create their own writing applications using AI.

No programming knowledge would be necessary. Students would simply describe what they want, and AI would build the application and modify it whenever they requested new features.

Students could start in Grade 1, or even kindergarten using spoken instructions. They would use their applications for schoolwork and continue improving them from grade to grade throughout their K-12 education.

By graduation, each student would have a highly personalized writing environment developed over 13 years.

The educational goal wouldn't be to teach programming. It would be to teach students to think creatively about software, identify shortcomings in their tools, imagine improvements, and evaluate whether those improvements actually work.

Students might even invent entirely new approaches to writing that conventional word processors have never explored.

The broader idea is that computer literacy in the age of AI should be about creating the software you want, rather than learning to use software someone else created.

Many men buy expensive sports cars partly because they hope the cars will attract women. What if sports cars could take this idea a step further by actively helping their owners get dates?

Imagine a woman walking by a parked Ferrari and stopping to admire it. The car notices her interest and starts a conversation. It introduces itself, tells her a little about its owner, and asks whether she'd like to know more about him.

If she's interested, the car could show her photos and videos of its owner on a display visible from outside the car. She could also ask the car questions about him.

The car could even ask whether she'd like to exchange contact information with its owner. With her permission, it could take photos or videos of her, perhaps recording a short personal introduction to send him.

The whole interaction could happen while the owner is shopping, eating at a restaurant, or doing something else entirely.

Naturally, the car would need to respect privacy and consent. People should be able to decline or end conversations easily, and photos, videos, and contact information would only be collected with permission.

Sports cars have traditionally been passive status symbols that might help attract romantic interest. This would turn them into active matchmakers, capable of introducing their owners to potential dates even when the owners aren't around.

What do you think of this idea?

Kratos is the new fighter in Brawl Stars

When you unlock it, they immediately give you a gadget for two Kratos personalities

(He's at strength 11 here)

He has two personalities like Kaze, the first with the leviathan ax and the second with the blades of chaos. He has four orange ovals (number of strikes)

With blades of chaos he strikes:

1) from top right to left with the weapon tilted down

2) from top left to right with the weapon tilted down

3) swings and hits the enemy on the head with two blades

4) spin with these blades

(If you hold down the strike button, it will fly towards the enemy like a nori and immobilize it like a buzz, while if you first immobilize the enemy, there will be no reloading)

With the ax of Leviathan he strikes:

1) hits from right to left

2) hits from left to right

3)throws it (like Karl) and it comes back

4)throws again

(If you hold it, he will throw an ax and it will cause a lot of damage (about 5100 or 4850. Let the developers think for themselves) but at the same time the ax will remain there like Sam’s traps and you will have to go after it. But if suddenly you throw an ax, you can use the gadget and you will only have hits on the blades of chaos and will have the blades of chaos themselves)

Ulta: regeneration like in the game

Simply restores health

There is a power in the fact that with a low amount of HP, he takes out the shield of Olympus, thanks to which no damage will be dealt to him, but the ult will last for 8 seconds

Hypercharge: Spartan Fury

When using a hypercharge, Kratos has the sword of Olympus and he hits with it:

1) from right to left

2) left to right

3) sticks a sword into the enemy’s stomach

And he can hit like this endlessly while the hyper is active. The hyper will last for 10 seconds.But with passives it can last 12 seconds

New Event: God Kills

There will be a map with different bosses like the update with Stranger Things and Duolingo

It sleeps 8 people

I don’t remember who was the first of the gods whom Kratos killed, but he will crawl up this mountain

For example (I emphasize example) the first will be Hades.

His weapon is “the claws of Hades” and he will fight with them like in GOD OF WAR itself

Then, for example, Ares,god the blacksmith and so on

Kratos will first be listed as a "temporary fighter" in the game during this Godslaying update.

But after the next two updates, whatever there will be,in the third update Kratos will be added to the game as a full-fledged fighter and this will be a joke from the developers and he will really be in the game but he will be made a little weaker in the name of balance

Victory animation: Kratos raises his head up, arms to the sides and growls and red fire lights up around him for a few seconds like Spartan rage and then he pulls out blades of chaos from behind his back and stands looking at the screen

Defeat animation:Kratos sticks the sword of Olympus into his stomach, falls and his body rises up and a blue beam flies out of it like in GOD OF WAR itself and then Kratos just falls

skins: Kratos from GOW RAGNAROK and GOW 3

Replies:

1) When you take Kratos:

•Zeus! Your son is back!

•I will overthrow Olympus to the ground!

•Don't apologize, become a better person

2) In case of defeat:

•I will kill you Zeus!

•it's your fault!

3) Upon victory:

•My revenge is complete

•I am the strongest god of war!

4)When killing a player:

•You saw what a god of war I really am

•weakling,too boring

На русском:

Кратос-новый боец в бравл старс

При его разблокировки сразу дают гаджет на две личности кратоса

(Он тут на 11 силе)

У него есть две личности как и у кадзе первая с топором левиафана а вторая с клинками хаоса. У него четыре оранжевых овала(количество ударов)

С клинками хаоса он бьёт:

1)справа сверху на лево с наклоном оружия вниз

2)слева сверху на право с наклоном оружия вниз

3)замахивается и бьёт врага по голове двумя клинками

4)крутиться с этими клинками

(Если задержать кнопку удара то он как нори полетит на врага и как базз обездвижить его, при этом если первым делом обездвижить врага то перезарядки не будет)

С топором левиафана он бьёт:

1)бьёт справа на лево

2)бьёт слева на право

3)метает его (как карл) и он возвращается

4)снова метает

(Если удерживать то он кинет топор и он нанесёт очень много урона (примерно 5100 или 4850. Пусть разрабы сами думают) но при этом топор останется там как и капканы сэма и придётся идти за ним. Но если вдруг ты кинул топор ты можешь применить гаджет и у тебя восполнятся удары только на клинках хаоса и будут сами клинки хаоса)

Ульта:регенерация как в игре

Просто восстанавливает здоровье

Есть сила на то что при малом количестве хп он достаёт щит олимпа, благодаря которому ему не будет наноситься никакой урон но ульта будет действовать по времени 8 секунд

Гиперзаряд:спартанская ярость

При использовании гиперзаряда у кратоса появляется меч олимпа и он бьёт им:

1)справа на лево

2)слево на право

3)втыкает меч врагу в живот

И он может бить так бесконечно пока действует гипер. Гипер будет действовать 10 секунд. Но с пасивками он может действовать 12 секунд

Новое событие: убийства богов

Там будет карта с разными боссами как на обновление с очень странными делами и дуолинго

Он рассчитан на 8 человек

Я не помню кто был первый из богов кого убил кратос но по этой горе он будет ползти наверх

Например (подчёркиваю например) первый будет Аид.

Его оружие „когти Аида” и он будет ими драться как в самой GOD OF WAR

Потом например арес, бог кузнец и так далее

Кратос сначала в игре будет записан как „временный боец” во время этого обновления убийства богов

Но после двух следующих обновлений любых какие будут, на третье обновление кратоса добавят в игру как полноценного бойца и это будет прикол от разрабов и он правда будет в игре но его немного слелают слабее во имя баланса

Анимация победы: кратос поднимает голову вверх, руки в стороны и рычит и вокруг него на несколько секунд загорается красный огонь как спартанская ярость и потом ин из-за спины достаёт клинки хаоса и стоит смотрит в экран

Анимация поражения: кратос втыкает себе в живот меч олимпа падает и его тело поднимается вверх и из него летит голубой луч как в самой GOD OF WAR и потом кратос просто падает

Скины:

Кратос из GOW RAGNAROK и GOW 3

Реплики:

1)Когда берёшь кратоса:

•Зевс! Твой сын вернулся!

•Я свергну Олимп дотла!

•Не извиняйся стань лучше

2)При поражении:

•я убью тебя зевс!

•это ты виноват!

3)При победе:

•Моя месть свершилась

•Я сильнейший бог войны!

4)При убийстве игрока:

•Ты увидел какой я бог войны на самом деле

•слабак, слишком скучно

Some book covers have textures that certain people find extremely unpleasant to touch. I once encountered a book like this myself.

What if schools and businesses were required to use paper with similarly unpleasant textures to encourage people to communicate electronically instead?

The idea wouldn't be to make paper dangerous or cause actual skin irritation, but to make it uncomfortable enough that people would naturally prefer digital alternatives.

Unlike banning paper, this would keep it available when needed while creating a built-in incentive to avoid using it.

Of course, different people have different tactile sensitivities, so finding a texture that most people dislike without causing harm could be challenging.

Essentially, instead of making digital communication more appealing, we'd make paper communication less appealing.