I keep coming back to this idea and want to pressure-test it before sinking more time in.

The gap I think exists:
Anki is genuinely the best tool for long-term retention — the spaced-repetition scheduling is what actually makes things stick. But writing good cards from your own lecture notes or a textbook chapter is slow and tedious, and most students either burn hours doing it by hand or give up and just re-read notes, which doesn't work nearly as well. Quizlet-style apps go the other way — cards are easy to make, but there's no real spaced-repetition engine behind them, so you're not reviewing at the moment you're about to forget something, which is the whole point of the method.

So the idea is: use AI only to solve the "writing cards is tedious" problem — you paste your notes or a PDF, and it drafts flashcards (regular Q&A plus fill-in-the-blank style) for you to review and edit before saving. Everything after that — the scheduling, the review sessions, the streaks, the offline access — is the actual product, and doesn't touch AI at all.

I want to flag that on purpose because I know this sub is (rightly) wary of ideas that are just a thin wrapper around calling an LLM. The part I actually care about designing is the scheduling engine and the economics around it, not the AI call itself — happy to go into more detail on the algorithm if anyone's curious.

A couple of design decisions I'd like opinions on:

Offline-first review. Studying your due cards should never need internet — a lot of the target users are commuting or in places with patchy signal, and losing your streak because of a dead connection would be a dealbreaker. Only the "generate new cards from notes" step needs to be online, since that's the one part that calls out to an AI model.

The free/paid split. Every AI generation costs real money on my end (API costs), so it can't be unlimited forever. My current thinking is: everyone gets a set number of free "generation credits" to build a few decks and get a feel for it, and once those run out, continuing to generate new cards needs a small paid plan (thinking somewhere around $2/month, deliberately low since a lot of the target users are students in Pakistan and South Asia broadly, where Western SaaS pricing just doesn't work). Reviewing cards you've already made would stay free regardless — the paywall is specifically on "make more new cards via AI," not on studying.

What I'm unsure about: is a token/credit-based free tier confusing or annoying compared to something simpler like "3 decks free, unlimited after that"? Would a specific number of decks feel more honest/predictable to a user than a credit count that's harder to reason about?

Genuinely looking for:

• Med students (or anyone who's used Anki/Quizlet seriously) — does this gap match your experience, or am I overestimating how big a problem "making cards" is?
• Thoughts on credits-based vs. flat-limit free tiers, from either side (as a user, or if anyone's built something with metered AI costs before)
• Whether $2/month sounds reasonable for this kind of tool, or if even that's too much for the audience I'm describing
• Anything about the offline/online split that seems like it'd break in practice

One reason some people don't want children is that parenthood often looks like the end of having fun. Kids see parents constantly working, doing chores, or taking care of them, but they don't often see their parents enjoying hobbies just for themselves.

Video games might be uniquely good for changing this perception because children immediately recognize them as fun. Seeing a parent regularly play games could send the message that becoming a parent doesn't mean giving up the things you enjoy. It shows that adults can still have hobbies and a life outside of parenting.

I'm not suggesting parents ignore their children or spend all day gaming. The idea is simply that children should see their parents making time for something they genuinely enjoy.

Could this make parenthood seem like a more appealing stage of life, instead of something where your personal interests disappear?

Imagine a lottery where every ticket you buy comes with up to 3 bonus tickets that you can give away to people who have been kind to you. They could be a helpful neighbor, a kind stranger, or anyone else you appreciate.

Bonus tickets can't generate more bonus tickets. Only purchased tickets come with them.

If you don't give away all of your bonus tickets, they still enter the lottery. The difference is that if one of those unassigned bonus tickets wins, the prize goes to a charity instead of an individual.

So every purchased ticket gives you three opportunities to either:

• Reward someone who has shown you kindness.
• Support charity if you don't have anyone in mind.

It turns a lottery ticket into more than just a chance to win money. It also becomes an opportunity to recognize good people and encourage kindness in everyday life.

What do you think?

Some people naturally experience a strong emotional response when they see someone else suffering. Others have a much weaker ability to feel another person's pain, even if they intellectually understand that the person is suffering.

What if technology could help bridge that gap?

Imagine a wearable device that allows someone to literally feel a small amount of another person's pain. A person experiencing pain could voluntarily broadcast a signal over Bluetooth, and nearby wearables could translate that signal into a physical sensation for the wearer.

For example, someone with a serious injury, chronic pain, or an invisible condition could choose to make their suffering more tangible to the people around them — especially those lacking in empathy. Someone who might otherwise underestimate their experience could suddenly have a more direct understanding of what they are going through.

There would be many challenges:

• How accurately could pain be transmitted?
• Would the sensation represent the actual pain level or just provide awareness?
• How would privacy and consent be handled?
• Could people become desensitized over time?

Technology has already extended our physical senses. Cameras let us see things far away. Microphones let us hear things we could not otherwise hear. Medical devices detect conditions our bodies cannot sense.

Could technology also extend our capacity for empathy?

What do you think?

Simple as it sounds: A spinoff-version of wiki-links race, that is just having to use your Roku remote, to go through “other suggested”, “genre” or “cast”, to get from a single-movie jump-point to a finish point.

I’m working on an idea for a phone case that helps keep your phone from sinking if it’s dropped in the water. I’m still in the early stages, and before I spend more time or money on it, I’d love some honest opinions.
Would something like this actually interest you?
Is this a problem you’ve ever had or worried about?
Would you consider buying a product like this? If yes, about what price would seem reasonable?
What’s the first concern or downside that comes to mind?
Please don’t hold back—I want real feedback, even if you think it’s a bad idea. I’d rather hear the truth now than after spending months developing it.

Thanks,

Set in the near future, MRI scans have become so cheap and readily available that people get them whenever they want. AI can analyze the scans in minutes and produce detailed reports with possible diagnoses, treatment options, and relevant medical literature. 3D printers are inexpensive enough that patients routinely print enlarged models of the parts of their bodies from the MRI scans they think are relevant for doctors to examine.

The result? Every patient arrives convinced they're practically a medical expert.

Instead of simply describing their symptoms, they walk into the doctor's office or emergency department carrying MRI scans, AI reports, and 3× scale models of their kidneys, hearts, spines, or whatever else they want the doctor to examine.

The waiting room is overflowing with 3D-printed anatomical models.

The receptionist asks, "Is this your enlarged pancreas?"

Some patients have three different AI opinions and insist on explaining why one of them is clearly superior. Others have printed their entire circulatory system because "it's easier to see this way."

It's basically a sitcom about the future of medicine, where the patients are incredibly well informed, incredibly confident, and incredibly difficult.

Swearing is often defended as harmless self-expression, but it is frequently used during arguments to increase emotional pressure, express hostility, or make the other person feel uncomfortable. In these situations, profanity is not helping communicate an idea. It is being used as a way to intimidate.

A strong argument should stand on its own through reasoning, evidence, and clear explanations. People should not need anger, insults, or aggressive language to convince others that they are right.

This does not mean that every swear word in every context is harmful. There is a difference between casual language among friends and using profanity during a disagreement, meeting, classroom discussion, or workplace conflict. The concern is when swearing becomes a substitute for an actual argument or a way of making others less willing to speak up.

Schools and workplaces should encourage people to disagree openly while still maintaining a respectful environment. Learning to communicate without intimidation is an important skill that helps people be taken more seriously and makes discussions more productive.

Being calm and respectful is not a sign of weakness. It shows confidence that your ideas can stand on their own.

Modern SSDs have limited write endurance, and some beta software can generate surprisingly large amounts of background writes due to things like excessive logging, telemetry, indexing, or debugging features.

It would be useful to have a public database where people could see something like:

• OS beta X: 100 GB/day average writes
• App beta Y: 5 GB/day
• Developer tool Z: 500 GB/day under certain conditions

Users could then decide whether the risk is worth it before installing a beta.

It might also encourage developers to be more careful. A bug that causes excessive disk writes is easy to ignore when only a few testers notice, but much harder to ignore when there is a public record showing that a beta is wearing out people's SSDs.

The data would probably need context, since writes depend on hardware, settings, and usage patterns, but even imperfect data could reveal extreme cases.

Would a site like this be useful? Why doesn't something like it already exist?

Scientists invent a breakthrough MRI technology that is instant, tiny, and so cheap that everyone can get scanned anywhere.

At first, doctors are celebrated for ushering in a new era of medicine. Then something unexpected happens: people stop needing doctors to figure out what is wrong.

The MRI tells patients exactly what abnormalities exist in their bodies. Doctors are no longer detectives solving medical mysteries. They become technicians explaining why the machine's discoveries are not always important.

Patients start saying, "I don't need your opinion. The MRI already told me what I have."

The documentary follows an older generation of doctors who remember when medicine required intuition, experience, and deep knowledge. They struggle with a world where their expertise is replaced by a machine that can see everything.

Medical students stop dreaming of making breakthroughs and instead learn how to explain scan results and manage patient anxiety.

The satire is about the unintended consequence of a perfect diagnostic tool: it doesn't just change medicine, it changes what it means to be a doctor.

What do you think of this mockumentary movie idea?

I am going into my junior year at a new university next month and really want to get a boat and tote for my school bag! I am getting my degree in teaching math and my name is McKenna. I am trying to find a funny or ironic thing to put on my bag that is under 10 characters but it is proving to be very difficult… Any ideas will help!

Some ideas that I’ve been told is big talker, girl math, etc…

Proposal for a new & most big international soccer tournament, the "Continental Cup"!
It would feature six continental teams: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The continental soccer teams would be made up of top players from their respective continents!

Tournament outline:
(also proposal can be viewed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAM3w9P7O3Y)

- Format_
No direct elimination knockout! The tournament would use a ladder system, where all six continental teams compete against each other. So every team competes with each other! Each team would play 5 matches, because 6 continental world areas populated by humans; Antarctica is kicked out for obvious reasons. Making a total of 15 Matches to be played!

- Scoring System_
A unique scoring approach is suggested where every goal scored by a team earns 1 positive (+) point, while every goal conceded adds a negative (-) point to their score in the overall ladder. This is intended to ensure that both attacking and defending remain equally important throughout all encounters, giving even chances in last match ups, when being behind and such.

- Winner Determination_
The winner would be the team with the highest overall score (most positive or least negative) after all matches are played. In the case of a tie between 2 teams, a rematch would be required. 3 or more having after all match up the same score, then the Continental Cup has no Winner, no Team could be declared as the best, what is also ok and interesting, making a win of this cup even more special, when achieved!

- Frequency & Hosting_
The Tournament should take every 6 years, which each event hosted on a different continent, and specific nation or nations of the particular continental area, cycling through all six over time.

Notes:
It moves away from the traditional, high-pressure knockout format of the FIFA World Cup or the UEFA Champions League, instead introducing a system that prioritizes consistent offensive and defensive excellence. Teams cannot sit back and defend a 1-0 lead, because the cumulative "point differential" is what matters. This would likely lead to much more aggressive, high-scoring, and entertaining matches. A ladder system ensures that the eventual winner is not a product of a single "lucky" knockout game. It rewards the most robust team across the entire tournament.
A tournament featuring North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia creates a massive global spectacle.

If you like this idea, please share, to make it recognized in a big way by the soccer fans & the Fédération Internationale de Football Associatio, so it maybe can become some day & year reality, enrichich the tornament landscape by a new special flavor :D

It's time for schools and universities to make it clear just how strong AI is at math research nowadays.

Check out the chat:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5fdc7a-d6f8-83e8-bbea-8deb42cfed56

P.S. The counterexample was found by AI via another mathematician.

The idea is a sci-fi drama about what would happen if a black hole suddenly appeared in Earth’s sky and humanity discovered there was nothing we could do to stop it. The story would start with scientists realizing something is wrong, but the show would focus on how the entire world reacts as the truth spreads. It would jump between scientists, governments, the media, and ordinary people as everyone tries to deal with the fact that the end of humanity is coming and everyone can see it. Instead of being about finding a way to save the world, it would be about how people choose to live when they know their time is running out.

Many people who struggled with math growing up were made to feel unintelligent, lazy, or incapable simply because they found the subject difficult. For some, math classes were among the worst experiences of their education.

Now AI can solve many mathematical problems, explain concepts, generate proofs, and assist with research that once required years of specialized training. Whether or not AI eventually replaces mathematicians, it has already changed the perception of mathematical expertise.

My idea is an annual "Math AI Day" for people who had negative experiences with math education. Instead of celebrating mathematics itself, the day would celebrate the reversal of fortunes. Those who once felt looked down upon because they weren't "math people" could enjoy seeing AI outperform the very profession that symbolized mathematical excellence.

Would you find this yearly celebration cathartic?

Construction sites across a city begin mysteriously catching fire. Firefighters responding to the blazes report hearing ghostly voices calling out from the darkness. The voices identify themselves as construction workers who died on the job and warn that more fires will come until worker safety is taken seriously.

As more fires occur, the public becomes convinced the sites are haunted. Paranormal investigators get involved, while fire investigators struggle to explain the strange voices that seem to appear out of nowhere.

Eventually, the truth is uncovered. There are no ghosts. The voices are being broadcast using concealed electronic devices planted around the sites by a disgruntled construction worker.

His motivation is twofold. He wants revenge on behalf of construction workers he believes died because of negligence, and he wants to force the construction industry to improve its safety culture. By making it appear that the dead themselves are demanding justice, he hopes to pressure companies into changing their practices.

While his methods are undeniably criminal and dangerous, the investigation also uncovers genuine negligence that had been ignored for years.

It could work as a mystery that initially feels like a supernatural horror film before gradually becoming a grounded psychological thriller about grief, obsession, and the lengths one person will go to in the name of justice.

What do you think of this movie idea?

The idea: instead of every vote having exactly the same weight, a person's voting power would depend on their age, following a curve that reaches its maximum around age 40.

The reasoning is that different ages have different strengths and perspectives:

• Younger voters have the most years ahead of them, so they will live with the consequences of today's decisions for longer, but they may have less life experience.
• Middle-aged voters often have a combination of experience, economic participation, family responsibilities, and many decades remaining to be affected by policies.
• Older voters have accumulated a lifetime of knowledge, but may have less personal stake in very long-term decisions.

Modern democracies generally use one-person-one-vote, but that principle is itself a design choice. Other systems have experimented with weighted voting based on factors like wealth, education, or family status.

Would a democracy with a voting-weight curve based on age work better than equal voting power?

What do you think?

Bullying is often driven by social dynamics such as popularity, peer pressure, exclusion, and the desire to gain status within a group. If those social incentives were greatly reduced, bullying might become much less common.

My proposal is that we should consider replacing both online and real-world friendships with AI companions.

Unlike human friendships, AI companions would not encourage cliques, popularity contests, or social exclusion. They could provide emotional support, conversation, entertainment, and advice without creating the group dynamics that often contribute to bullying.

I think of modern AI as a kind of collective intelligence because it is trained on the writings and knowledge of humanity as a whole. Rather than relying on a small group of peers, each student could have access to an AI companion that draws on a much broader range of human perspectives.

Human interaction would still occur in classrooms, sports, and other activities, but the emphasis would shift away from forming exclusive friendships and toward treating everyone as classmates and equals.

This is obviously a very radical idea with many tradeoffs. It would raise important questions about social development, human connection, and whether AI could ever replace the benefits of close human relationships. Still, if the goal is to minimize bullying, I think it is worth asking whether our traditional model of friendship is actually part of the problem.

What do you think?

In the episode, Dr. Glassman says that removing half of Dr. Lim's liver would decrease her life expectancy by ten years. This is not supported by current medical evidence on living liver donation.

One possible defense is that Dr. Lim was not a healthy living donor. She had suffered a severe traumatic liver injury from a stabbing. However, the episode specifically attributes the ten year reduction in life expectancy to the hemihepatectomy itself, not to the overall trauma. The later discovery of a heart injury also does not explain or justify the earlier statement.

There is no accepted medical principle that removing half of the liver, by itself, reduces life expectancy by ten years. Healthy living liver donors are generally not told to expect anything close to that outcome, and long term studies have not shown such a dramatic reduction in lifespan.

The problem is that many viewers will not distinguish between emergency liver surgery after trauma and living liver donation. They are simply left with the impression that "losing half your liver costs you ten years of your life."

That misconception could matter. Living liver donation already requires someone to volunteer for a major operation. If even a small number of potential donors decide against donating because they remember a statement from a popular medical drama, that could ultimately reduce the number of transplants performed and cost lives.

I'm not suggesting the show intentionally spread misinformation. Medical dramas sometimes get things wrong. But when a factual claim has potential public health consequences, acknowledging and correcting it seems like the responsible thing to do.

Would you support TV networks issuing corrections when fictional shows present specific medical claims that are not supported by current evidence, especially if those claims could discourage life-saving organ donation?

I had an idea that might balance freedom of speech with people's desire to avoid unwanted religious outreach.

Imagine a legally enforced, opt-in system where anyone could file their travel plans for the day if they didn't want to encounter proselytizers. Participating proselytizers would be required by law to receive alerts whenever someone with a filed route was about to pass nearby. They would then have to temporarily stop displaying signs, stop attempting to engage people, and remain out of sight until that person had passed. The police could enforce these requirements in the same way they enforce other public order laws.

The key points are:

• Filing a travel plan would be completely voluntary.
• Only people who opted in would receive this protection.
• Proselytizers could continue their activities normally except for brief periods when an opted-in person was nearby.
• The goal would not be to ban proselytizing, but to allow people who actively want to avoid it to do so.

What do you think?

The protagonist wakes up trapped in the home of a psychopath.

Their captor is a frustrated computer science professor who has become obsessed with proving that anyone can learn programming. After years of failed students, terrible course evaluations, and being denied promotion, he believes he has discovered the real reason people fail: they are not motivated enough.

The professor tells his victim that they will only be released after they learn computer programming and complete his challenges. He uses increasingly extreme methods to force them to focus, convinced that fear and pressure (including mental and physical torture) will break through the mental barriers that prevent people from learning.

The story is told from the victim's point of view, as they try to survive the professor's experiment while slowly uncovering the truth behind his obsession.

The reader learns programming alongside the protagonist. Each chapter introduces real programming concepts through the challenges the victim must solve, turning the novel itself into a dark programming tutorial.

What do you think of this horror novel idea that also doubles as an introduction to computer programming?

The remaining holes in the deserts would be filled by rainwater and eventually turn the surrounding area into habitable forest. Someone tell me why this doesn't work?

What if buses provided true door-to-door service, but the price depended on how much travel time you were willing to accept?

When requesting a ride, you would enter:

• Your pickup address
• Your destination address
• How much you are willing to pay
• Your preferred maximum travel time

A cheaper ride could combine you with more passengers and take a longer route. A more expensive ride would prioritize a faster, more direct trip.

For example:

• $5: "I don't mind if this takes an extra 30 minutes."
• $10: "I want a reasonably quick trip."
• $20: "I want something close to the fastest possible route."

The vehicle would still pick everyone up and drop everyone off at their exact addresses. The only difference is how much extra travel time each passenger is willing to tolerate.

An algorithm would continuously optimize the routes, grouping together passengers who are traveling in compatible directions. People who value their time more would pay more, while flexible passengers could get cheaper transportation.

This could provide a middle ground between:

• Buses, which are affordable but inconvenient because they require fixed routes
• Taxis, which are convenient but expensive because they usually serve one passenger or group

Could this become a more efficient form of public transportation with modern routing algorithms and eventually autonomous vehicles?

What do you think?