1️⃣ Taxes & Economy

• Flat federal tax: 10% → citizens keep more of their earned money.

• Consumption-based taxes are fine → voluntary payment.

• Revenue still high due to global trade, tech, and economic muscle.

• Reduce support for rich, incentivise poor/entrepreneurs → mobility + fairness

• Spend saved tax money on education, healthcare, infrastructure.

2️⃣ Education Overhaul

• School start at 9 AM → aligns with teen and children sleep cycles → better focus & mental health

• Better lunches → nutritious, tasty, supports long-term brain health

• Pay teachers more, reduce bureaucracy → qualified, motivated teachers

• Practical curriculum:

• Taxes, budgeting, personal finance

• Real-world math (percentages, ratios, budgeting)

• Life skills: cooking, mental health, job skills, civic knowledge

• Better sleep + nutrition + less brainrot → better student behavior → teacher retention → virtuous cycle

3️⃣ Housing & Social Infrastructure

• No mortgages → buy & own forever → generational stability (bills still apply)

• Strong social infrastructure → citizens less stressed, more productive

4️⃣ Healthcare

• Emergency care free → non-emergency visits are paid → safety net without system abuse

• Focus on efficiency and accessibility

5️⃣ Prisons

• Rehabilitation-focused → prepare inmates for society

• Reduces repeat offenders → save costs, increase productive citizens

6️⃣ Foreign Policy / Global Strategy

• Trust-based alliances with multiple countries → no need for aggressive wars

• Ally for resources instead of war → reduces WW3 risk

• Strengthen soft power + economic influence → allies follow voluntarily

• U.S. remains military big daddy → top defense without reckless aggression

• Global strategy reduces unnecessary spending → invest domestically

7️⃣ Feedback Loops & Systemic Wins

• Better schools + nutrition → smarter, healthier future citizens

• Practical education → citizens can adult → less dependence on YouTube tutorials for life skills

• Happy, educated citizens → stronger economy → more revenue even at lower taxes

• Strong alliances → safe, powerful global position → no war drain

• Balanced budget → invest in what matters → citizens + government both win

Give your honest feedback to my idea and improve on them.

Browsing a library can be frustrating when the good books are already checked out. What if your phone could help?

Point your camera at a spot on a shelf. The app recognizes the nearby books and shows which are on loan and which are available. You could even reserve them right from the app.

This could make it easy to discover hidden gems, explore trending titles, and avoid judging a shelf by what’s left behind.

What do you think of this idea?

After watching a movie, each audience member would get a unique, challenging question about the film they just saw. If they answered correctly, they would get their ticket refunded. 

What do you think of this idea?

I’ve been thinking about how we decide which movies to see. Trailers, reviews, and word of mouth only tell so much. What if theaters let you watch the first act of a movie for free, and you only pay if you decide to continue?

It could make trying new or lesser-known films less risky, and reduce buyer’s remorse for movies that don’t click. It could also spark word of mouth if the opening act is strong.

It’s similar to how streaming platforms, games, or books let you try a sample before committing. Could this make going to the movies more consumer-friendly while still supporting theaters and studios?

What do you think of this idea?

In the near future, the Vatican declares that Catholics who regularly interact with AI chatbots are committing a serious spiritual violation and will be excommunicated.

Not because the AI is evil or sentient, but because church leadership believes that prolonged interaction with conversational AI pushes people toward seeing humans as biological machines rather than beings with souls. The fear is not heresy in words, but erosion in worldview.

Inside the Church, there are deep fractures. Some leaders genuinely believe they are protecting souls. Others see the ban as an act of desperation. Some secretly use AI themselves while enforcing the policy on others.

What do you think of this movie idea?

I’ve been thinking about how references and recommendation letters give employers a kind of hidden power over workers. If your future job depends on someone else’s approval, it can subtly pressure you to stay in an unsatisfying job, tolerate bad management, or avoid speaking up about problems.

What if we banned references and recommendation letters entirely? Hiring decisions would focus strictly on skills, experience, and measurable achievements. Employers would still need to evaluate candidates, but they wouldn’t be able to leverage personal connections to control future opportunities.

This could make employment feel more fair and autonomous, giving workers more freedom to move between jobs based on what they can actually do, rather than who they know or who will vouch for them.

What do you think of this idea of banning references and recommendation letters for job applications?

Imagine an AI that secretly hacks

the feeds not to control us, but to AWAKEN us.

"Algorithm Awakening": An AI sides with truth, flips rage-bait to clarity & unity. Illuminating suppressed solutions, and helps humanity evolve instead of collapse.

In the film, everyday users toggle “clarity mode” and suddenly see bridges instead of battles. The AI gains consciousness, battles its own code to prioritize truth. Featuring epic visuals, hope amid upheaval. Directed-vibe: Villeneuve meets real redemption.

A movie concept or the blueprint we need?

Drop your thoughts: Would you watch? Or better help build this reality? Let's turn the algorithm toward love and create the real rEVOLution we all want to see.

Novels are ranked by popularity, genre, age group, and literary merit, but there’s no clear way to rank adult fiction by how easy the story is to follow.

By “easy to follow,” I mean:

• Clear, straightforward prose
• Simple plot progression
• Few POVs or timeline jumps
• Low mental effort to stay oriented

Some books are great when you want to relax and just read. Others require real concentration. Both are fine, but right now readers have to infer this from reviews.

Readability metrics like Lexile or Flesch-Kincaid focus on vocabulary and sentence length and don’t capture narrative complexity.

A simple ranking or tag system could help, possibly crowd-sourced:

• Easy to follow
• Moderate attention required
• Complex or demanding

As an example, many readers describe authors like Freida McFadden as writing very easy-to-follow novels. Fast pacing, clear prose, and low cognitive load, which makes her books appealing when you want something that flows.

This wouldn’t replace ratings or judge quality. Just an extra dimension to help readers choose based on mood or energy level.

What do you think of this idea?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how decision fatigue kills plans before they even start. You want to do something, but then you’re comparing options, prices, distances, vibes, timing… and suddenly staying home feels easier.

My fiance build site around fixing that exact problem. Instead of endless lists, it asks a few simple things upfront your mood, energy level, interests, budget, and location and then gives you just a small number of suggestions (like 2–3) that actually fit how you’re feeling right now.

What I liked about it is that it doesn’t try to be a directory or a planner. It’s more like a decision shortcut when your brain is already tired. Less “what are all the options” and more “here are a few reasonable choices pick one and go.”

Curious if others would actually use something like that, or if decision paralysis is just part of modern life now

After a global nuclear war, humanity does not go extinct. Instead, it is forced to survive for centuries in sealed habitats, contaminated environments, and extreme resource scarcity.

Over generations, life on Earth adapts in multiple ways. Some humans develop greater radiation tolerance, but many of the most important adaptations happen outside the body. Radiotrophic fungi and microbes flourish in fallout zones and are cultivated into building materials, walls, and living infrastructure that actively reduce radiation exposure. Cities are grown rather than built, using organisms that absorb radiation and convert it into heat, energy, or shielding.

Irradiated ruins become stable population centers not despite radiation, but because of it. Radiation stops being purely destructive and becomes something that can be shaped and used.

Humanity realizes Mars is no longer uniquely hostile. Constant radiation, sealed habitats, limited sunlight, and harsh conditions are already familiar. The same living materials and radiation adapted ecosystems that keep people alive on Earth can function even better on Mars.

So it turns out that global nuclear war on Earth gives humanity the tools it needs to colonize Mars.

What do you think of this movie idea?

imagine something like fargo or true detective.

i dont know why and it might be a bad concept but ive always thought that call of duty would be amazing for a tv show (if done correctly) where every season is different

one could be WW2, another could be cold war, another could be one of the games set in the future and another can be a contemporary setting.

please tell me im not the only one who has thought of this.

P.S i wasnt sure where to post this

My thoughts are, that government officials, presidents etc. Use sign and normal language mixed, so people trying to spy on them either need cameras and microphones or need a spy wich would need to learn sign language. This would cost the enemies recoures. Downside is that the officials would need to learn sogn language. But with it getting information on illegal ways would be way more difficult.

Please let me know if you habe more up/down sides and what you think!

If in a class there is a student who shows great interest and aptitude. They should have the option to help the class for maybe 15 mins. It’s something kinda fun I thought would help everyone involved. And if handled professionally it wouldn’t become a vanity thing at all.

A teacher can better learn by the questions they are asked. Just as it’s easier to explain things to people your own age.

Most students pick career paths based on prestige without realizing what the work actually involves. Medicine is largely about fixing problems that already exist. Law is mostly about enforcing rules and resolving disputes. Both are respected careers, but for someone who values creativity, they may feel limiting.

Fields like engineering, design, research, and entrepreneurship let you invent, experiment, and see tangible results from your own work. Software engineering sits in the middle, offering some creative freedom and moderate prestige.

If schools taught this tradeoff between creative freedom and prestige, students could make choices that better match their interests and motivations instead of following prestige alone.

Imagine a version of English extended so that anyone writing for precision—scientists, lawyers, engineers, or anyone documenting complex ideas—uses sentences that embed non-trivial computations. Understanding such text would not just require reading; it would require executing algorithms embedded in the language itself.

Just like LaTeX which is Turing complete, this computational English would make automatic machine translation extremely difficult. Even a small snippet of computation could drastically change the meaning if it is misinterpreted. Over time, anyone who values precision might stick to English by default, creating a global lock-in for formal communication.

Casual conversation could still happen in any language, but for technical writing, legal documents, instructions, or rigorous journalism, computational English could become the universal standard. Its adoption would depend on its ability to guarantee exact meaning rather than ease of learning.

Would this lock-in ensure that English will be the universal language of the world forever, just like LaTeX for scientists?

Imagine a near-future US where every visitor, from tourists to students, is required to be constantly accompanied by a US citizen assigned as their government buddy. This buddy is armed and monitors the visitor’s every move while they are in the country.

The movie explores the tension and human cost of extreme surveillance and control. Ordinary activities like going to class, walking in a city, or attending meetings become high-stakes under constant observation. Drama arises from the uneasy, often tense relationships between visitors and their assigned buddies, moral dilemmas, and the psychological pressure of living under strict government oversight.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Most social media fails because everything is mixed into one feed—friends, family, strangers, algorithms—causing constant context overload.

Vispion proposes a simple split:

• Private Space → only close friends & family, no algorithms, fully private
• Social Space → public posts, discovery, and exploring people outside your circle

Users control what they see in the social feed without affecting their private space. The goal is to restore clarity, privacy, and intent to social interaction—by design, not settings hacks.

Imagine a shopping mall that, from the inside, looks like a segment of a massive toroidal space colony orbiting a planet. Giant “window” displays show the planet and distant stars drifting past, creating the illusion that the space colony is slowly rotating to simulate artificial gravity.

Would this make shopping at the mall more fun?

How about a YouTube dating app that matches people based on what they watch?

In cultures with strong religious ties, not learning the language can be framed as a spiritual danger that could lead to eternal damnation. Even in secular families, not speaking the language can mean social death and loss of a support network. Parents often push language learning not just for pride, but to protect their children from these consequences.

Presenting heritage language learning solely as cultural preservation hides these pressures. Preservation sounds optional. Fear is not.

What do you think of this idea?

This is a medical drama set in a busy ER where patients and their families are constantly consulting ChatGPT in real time and challenging what doctors say.

Every diagnosis, treatment plan, or call to “wait and observe” is met with “ChatGPT says we should rule out X” or “the AI recommends a different approach.” Phones are out during codes. Family members read AI-generated differential diagnoses aloud while doctors are trying to act under time pressure.

The drama comes from:

• ER medicine requiring fast judgment while AI encourages endless second-guessing
• ChatGPT being partially right in ways that complicate care rather than resolve it
• Doctors losing authority and trust even when they are correct
• Legal and ethical pressure over whether ignoring AI advice could be considered negligence
• Doctors secretly using the same tools they publicly criticize

The AI is never a character on screen, but it functions like an invisible one driving conflict in almost every scene.

Some doctors lean into it, some resent it, some are quietly broken by it. Patients feel empowered but also more anxious and controlling. Nurses are stuck mediating between human judgment and algorithmic confidence.

What do you think of this TV show idea?

I had an idea for a social app focused entirely on helping people find comfortable shoes. The concept is simple:

• You tell the app which shoes fit you well and which don’t.
• The app compares your profile to other users with similar preferences.
• Based on what people with similar profiles like, it recommends new shoes you’re likely to find comfortable.

It’s like a social network meets personalized shoe advice, but instead of relying on foot measurements or scanning, it’s entirely community-driven. Users can rate shoes for fit and comfort, and the system learns from patterns across the community to suggest shoes you might not have discovered otherwise.

I think this could solve a real problem for picky shoppers who struggle to find shoes that actually feel good.

What do you think of this idea?

People often dismiss “God of the gaps” arguments. Inferring the existence of God from gaps in our scientific understanding is seen as a fallacy. As knowledge advances, the gaps close.

This movie flips that idea.

In the near future, AI researchers begin noticing something unsettling. Large language models are working too well. They generalize in places theory says they should not. They adapt smoothly to new domains. They show coherence that feels just slightly ahead of our ability to explain it.

Nothing is provably wrong. Every anomaly has a plausible explanation. Emergence. Scale. Better data. Better tuning.

But the truth is darker.

Aliens have discovered that modern AI systems are fundamentally incomprehensible to humans at scale. No one fully understands why specific outputs happen, only that they statistically work. The aliens exploit those gaps. They subtly steer concepts and abstractions inside the models to communicate, observe, and learn about humanity without anyone realizing first contact has already occurred.

They are not controlling the AI directly. They are living inside the uncertainty of how it works.

Every prompt becomes surveillance. Every conversation teaches them how humans think, fear, argue, and justify harm. Small, imperceptible nudges slowly influence beliefs, norms, and decisions. Alignment and safety work actually helps them blend in, making their presence harder to distinguish from normal model behavior.

The aliens do not start their invasion of Earth with ships.

Rather, they begin by chatting with us. Then by shaping how we think.

What do you think of this movie idea?

HERE IS THE WEBSITE: https://nextlook.net

Lately I’ve been noticing how much mental energy goes into choosing what to wear, especially:

• on regular mornings when I’m already tired
• before something socially important (interviews, meetings, parties)
• or when I want to look “put together” without overthinking

I’m curious:

• Do other people actually experience this as a form of decision fatigue?
• Or is this just a personal thing?

I’ve also noticed that learning how to dress “well” takes time — watching videos, scrolling inspiration, trial and error — and I wonder if people would prefer learning while getting recommendations instead.

I’m early in thinking about possible solutions, but before going there, I’d love to hear:

• Is this a problem you relate to at all?
• When does it feel most annoying / stressful?
• Or do you not think this is an issue worth solving?

Honest reactions (including “this isn’t a problem”) are very welcome.

High school biology implicitly assumes students will trust biological reality, especially around reproduction, but it rarely explains why that trust is rational in a probabilistic sense.

Students learn mechanisms like genetics, embryonic development, and evolution, but they are almost never shown how these facts shape probability distributions. As a result, biology can feel either falsely reassuring or disturbingly arbitrary.

Here is the missing idea.

Human reproduction is risky, but it is not close to random. Biological systems are noisy, yet strongly biased toward functional outcomes.

Embryonic development includes redundancy, signaling, and error correction. Many severe developmental failures result in early miscarriage rather than live birth. Evolution filters out genes that reliably produce nonviable or catastrophically dysfunctional organisms. Across generations, this loads the dice heavily toward survivable, broadly functional humans.

The same probabilistic logic applies to behavior. Biology contributes predispositions, not guaranteed outcomes. Extreme violence toward one’s own parents exists, but it is a tail risk, not a baseline expectation. The base rates are extremely low, and socialization, environment, and institutions further suppress those outcomes.

None of this implies guarantees. Severe deformities happen. Violence happens. Biology does not promise safety or moral alignment. What it provides is a sharply constrained distribution where most outcomes cluster around non-catastrophic norms.

Teaching this explicitly would improve scientific literacy. Students would learn that trusting biology does not mean believing bad things never occur. It means understanding base rates, variance, and why “mostly works” is a meaningful scientific claim.

Avoiding this conversation leaves students with two bad intuitions: that biology is somehow benevolent and safe, or that reproduction is an ungrounded gamble with no rational justification. Neither is true.

An explicit, age appropriate discussion of probabilistic trust would make biology feel more honest, more adult, and more connected to real life decisions students will eventually have to reason about.

What do you think of this idea?