You have hit a financial rough patch lately. Not enough that you're likely to end up homeless, but enough that you're going to be eating a lot of rice and beans, or instant ramen, if you don't figure something out.
A curator of a, shall we say, specialist website contacts you. He makes you an offer. He will arrange for you to take some photos and/or videos of body parts and/or activities that you do not particularly consider to be sexual. Think, for example, pictures of your elbows, or videos of you popping balloons. The photography session will last about a day, and you will be able to refuse any particular shots that you find problematic for whatever reason, as long as you do allow a reasonable number of them.
He will pay you enough to live comfortably off of for at least a month. And the images do not contain any clearly identifying information (eg your name or face), unless someone can recognize your elbows or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about any impact on future jobs or whatever (unless you want to get a job as a hand model or something, maybe).
But your images will be on his website as long as it lasts (no takedowns allowed, unless you repay the money with interest), and though you may not consider what was recorded to be particularly sexual, there will be people around the world jorking it to your pictures and/or videos. And you don't get any subsequent royalties or anything, just the initial payment.
Do you hesitate? Why or why not? Any other thoughts?
(If you are not currently an adult, assume this offer comes after you are an adult)
Luckily, we found her before our important client was scheduled to receive her "donated" heart.
I found a picture from around 100 years ago with the same little girl in it, down to the pattern of her freckles.
The exercise is approximately as follows:
Take a song.
Please say what you are translating, then translate it, then back translate it to English again.
I will be starting my first example, House of the Rising Sun, shortly after I post this.
Imagine all of this being said in a slightly terrible French accent.
Robert and Sophie were a young couple, they were very much in love. Robert asked Sophie to marry him.
Sophie said that she would marry him, on one condition. Whenever she wished him to, ah, consummate their marriage, he would do so.
He thought about this, but figured he was French, he could handle it. So they were wed.
A little while later, they were driving in very heavy traffic, when Sophie says "Robert, Robert, I must have you now."
Robert replies "Can it not wait, Sophie? We are in the middle of traffic."
Sophie sobs "Are you telling me you're going to break your solemn promise to me?"
So, he pulls off to the side of the road, and they go underneath the car.
A little while later, a policeman comes by. "Sir, what do you think you are doing?"
Hastily, Robert replies "I am fixing my car, officer."
The officer replies "You are not doing this, and there are three reasons why I know this. One," he raises one finger, "your feet are pointed in the wrong direction."
"Two," a second finger, "people who are passing by are looking at you and shouting 'Vive La France'"
"And three," a third finger, "someone has stolen your car."
The basic idea is as follows:
Rather than using some purely arbitrary number to determine the theoretical maximum natural lifespan, derive a number from actual survival rates of people who reach the average lifespan.
For example, if the average lifespan is 75 years, and the average 75-year-old will die at age 85, that can reasonably be taken as the point at which, with presently available medical technology, your life probably can't be extended a whole lot even if whatever specifically killed you was cured. Basically, it can be argued that at that point, you're dying of old, rather than necessarily dying of the specific cause that killed you.
Then, use that, rather than an arbitrary cut off, to determine how many years are lost to a given illness or other cause of death every year.
This would be better than simply using average lifespan, which is heavily skewed by a lot of often quite preventable early causes of death, or picking an arbitrary number that might be either too high or too low, which would either overvalue or undervalue minor increases in the lifespans of the relatively old. And since it is a data driven figure rather than an arbitrary cutoff, it will naturally change to reflect actual changes in how long people are managing to live, because of changes in medical technology or whatever.
Then, whether you use that figure by itself, or something that is adjusted by quality of life metrics of some sort, you can get a data-driven figure for how much potential human life is lost to a given condition each year. Then, a little simple math will turn that into research dollars per year lost or whatever, and leave you as close as you can reasonably get to an apples to apples comparison between things like, say, research into rare childhood cancers, vs Alzheimer's research.
If we just use something like the average lifespan, then we could easily be undervaluing things that could give large numbers of people a couple of extra healthy years. But if we use the maximum lifespan of the luckiest few people, then we are going to be spending disproportionate effort on trying to eke out what may only be a few extra months for people who are essentially dying of multiple conditions at once. I think the average lifespan of people who managed to make it to "old" is probably the sweet spot between those extremes.
There is something of a basic problem in science, that has to do with honesty. Basically, if a scientific study gets something wrong, whether through honest error or actual intentional data-massaging or whatnot, we might not catch the problem for \*far\* too long, because there is very little incentive in the world of science to repeat experiments.
"Publish or perish" is a truism, but it's, well, a basically true one, at least in the world of academia. And scientific journals (there are probably entire essays that could be written about issues with scientific journals, but that's straying from the topic a bit) generally only want to publish \*new\* research. There's nothing exciting about "Yeah, I reran Dr. Bleh's experiment, and it turned out just the same". So even though re-running an experiment can be critical to catch errors (or intentional fraud), no one's really doing it.
But there is, to me, a pretty obvious pool of people who could probably be incentivized pretty easily to re-run experiments, and it would even be pretty useful to them: grad students. If it was a normal practice for grad students to be expected to re-run at least one or two recently published experiments in their field of study before they started doing original research, then they would get practice doing the actual cutting-edge work in their field before they start trying to do their own projects, they would serve as a useful double-check on the skills and academic honesty of that published research, and some of them will luck into projects where they can publish the rather-more-exciting "Yeah, I reran Dr. Bleh's experiment, and it turned out totally differently".
Another possibility would be a journal (well, probably several, at least one for each major scientific field, and probably at least a few sub-fields in areas like biology) that was \*explicitly\* for publishing those kinds of repeat studies. Probably very short articles for the cases where the repeat study turned out substantially the same, and longer articles that explored \*why\* the differences occurred when it turned out significantly differently. This could easily be combined with the first idea.
Thoughts?
You are going to be sent back in time. You will be in either your present location or wherever you consider home (your choice). You will be de-aged by however far you go back, to a physical age of 18. If you go back further than that, you will be unaging until you get to the point where you turned 18 in the original timeline, after which you will age normally.
You have no special protection against injuries, illness, or the like, but you will eventually completely recover from any illness or injury that does not actually kill you, eg. you don't have to worry about accumulating several centuries of lead poisoning or something if you go back to Roman times.
You will also be given the ability to adequately manage your memories, especially of your original timeline, if you go back far enough that you would exceed normal human capacities for such things.
You will be sent back in period appropriate clothing, with enough resources for the appropriate equivalent of a roughly middle-class lifestyle for one month, and adequate paperwork and so forth (or era appropriate equivalents) to pass unnoticed. You will also have roughly 10 minutes to write a note to anyone who would need to do something in your possible absence (as long as you manage to survive, you can come back exactly when and where you left off, but there might be enough of a gap that you want someone to look after your child or pet or something), and 10 minutes and a standard post-it note to record any information you wish to bring back with you.
The historical timeline will protect itself sufficiently that you are not going to butterfly effect anyone out of existence or anything, or substantially affect your own existence if you go back far enough, but you can potentially make deliberate changes if you have the means and the motive to do so.
The minimum distance you can go back is one month, the maximum distance you can go back is 100,000 years. You will only get back to today the long way around, however.
How far are you going back, what is going to be on your Post-It note, and what would you be trying to do in the past? Any other thoughts?
The bored Nth-dimensional being has some animal friends who want to become (mostly) human. She is willing to do so, as long as she can find foster parents who will take them in for at least a year and help them integrate into human society.
The candidates:
A giant Pacific octopus. She is hairless, more flexible than she "should" be, and has tentacles instead of fingers and toes. She has incredible manual dexterity, and some ability to change her skin color at will (though only within natural human color ranges, eg tanning or blushing). She is also essentially deaf.
A common raven. He is very thin, with black feathers instead of hair, and a somewhat beak-like nose. He is exceptional at solving puzzles. He also basically has pretty severe ADHD.
A brown rat. She is small, and extremely social/friendly, with a slightly pointy face and small but visible whiskers. She has exceptional navigation abilities and spatial awareness, but she is also essentially legally blind.
An African elephant. He is a big, beefy guy with unusually large and mobile ears, nose, and upper lip. He also has especially large, slightly rounded upper incisors. He has the amazing memory that elephants are famous for. He also basically has PTSD from the death of his original herd. And he's a vegan. He is also the youngest individual, developmentally, and would probably benefit from being fostered a bit longer.
A bold jumping spider. She has really short hair, and a small second pair of eyes just above her eyebrows. She's an amazing athlete, with exceptional balance, reflexes, depth perception, and coordination. But she's extremely introverted, and mute, communicating via sign language or a tablet device.
An eclectus parrot. He has red and blue feathers instead of hair, and a slightly hooked nose. He is exceptionally social, and amazing at mimicry, but he tends to be anxious, especially if alone. He's a vegetarian.
All of them, aside from the features I mentioned, are physically normal humans, and all of them can pass as human with a little careful costuming. They appear to be in their late teens, and the bored nth dimensional being will arrange matters so that they have appropriate paperwork and so forth to be in the foster care system, and you have appropriate paperwork to be a foster parent to them.
They can all speak and write in English, and/or the primary language wherever you live (with the exception of the octopus and the jumping spider, who speak ASL or your local equivalent). They will be able to attend a local high school or equivalent, without needing particular remedial classes or anything, though they will need the supports appropriate to their disabilities.
Would you be willing to become a foster parent to one or more of these individuals? If so, what would your preference be? Any other thoughts?
Imagine you have essentially enough money that money is no object. Anything that can be achieved simply by application of money, you can probably achieve.
What are the silliest and/or pettiest things you would do with that money? I'm talking about things like elaborate revenge on your high school bully, or hiring someone to take your pet rock on walks, or something.
Another Eccentric Billionaire social experiment.
As long as you maintain eligibility, you will get $1,000 USD per month, with the usual free and clear, no taxes, no funny business provisos. But, to maintain eligibility, you need to go at least once a month to a hairstylist of EB's choice, and let her do whatever she wishes to your hair.
The hair stylist will be local to you, and will not charge you any money, but she can cut your hair however she wishes, dye it any color, give you a perm, or even shave it all off. You could end up with a purple perm one month, and an orange Mohawk the next.
You are permitted to wear hats, head scarves, or the like, but not any kind of wig. Nor are you permitted to in any way color, cut, or otherwise substantially alter your hair. EB will make narrow and targeted exceptions for wigs worn as part of a costume, provided either it is your actual job to wear that costume, or it is Halloween or something like a science fiction convention.
Do you go for it? Why or why not? Any other thoughts?
Edit: if you are bald, she might use your scalp as a template for making henna designs.
This is another endeavor by The Eccentric Billionaire.
For every year that you agree to participate (a full 365 days), you will get $1 million USD at the end of the year. But, you have to keep a good faith accurate record of all of the following things:
Everything you eat, drink, or otherwise intentionally ingest (including things that are smoked or injected). Approximate times and quantities are required, though something like "a slice of pepperoni pizza from Joe's around 4:00" or whatever is sufficient.
Every time you defecate, urinate, or vomit. Approximate quantities and times are required, but they can be pretty vague (eg "a little bit", "the usual amount").
Every time you engage in sexual activity, including solo (essentially, anything involving your or someone else's genitals that is not sanitary or medical in nature). You do not need to give a detailed account, but you do need to record what body parts you used, and what body parts you interacted with of someone else's. Also, the sex (though not the identity or gender) of your partner(s).
Your approximate sleep schedule, including naps.
Every time you engage in relatively vigorous or intense physical activity. This would include any time you go jogging or running, every time you go to the gym to work out, every time you lift things heavier than about 40 lb/18 kg, and anything else that you think reasonably qualifies. Approximate times and activity types are required, though you don't need, for example, an exact count of the weight you lifted or the number of reps. You can group similar activities in a single entry (eg "spent the afternoon moving bales of hay")
Any significant injury or illness, including cause if known.
You will be given several convenient ways to record all of these things, including paper log books and a cell phone app. You can use whatever method is most convenient for you, as long as you record all of the data in one way or another by the time you are supposed to send it in. You are expected to send in your data at least once a month, though you can do it more frequently if you wish. You will have ways to send your data without costing you money.
EB has ways of checking your accuracy. Minor errors will not necessarily end your eligibility, though they may engender small subtractions from the million dollars, but any serious failure to make a good faith record of all of the above will end your eligibility permanently. You can also decide to stop at any time, though you will only be paid for a full 365 days of recording, or half pay if you have at least 250 days recorded. If you stop for whatever reason, you cannot restart.
The raw data will only be seen by EB and a small team of his most trusted associates, who will anonymize the data thoroughly before it is passed on to researchers.
Do you go for it? If so, how long? How disruptive do you think it would be for you? Would you change your behavior because you were logging it to any significant degree? Would you quit your job in order to do this, at least after the first payment comes in? Any other thoughts?
You are at the park one day when you meet an attractive individual of the appropriate sex (whatever that means for you). They seem interested in you, and you get to talking. They ask you out, but inform you, before you accept, that they are actually a cat or dog that has been turned into a human. And they have evidence to this effect. A video of their transformation, or something.
I am going to refer to the cat person as she and the dog person as he, mostly for convenience, but your prospective partner is of the appropriate sex for you to date them whether they are a cat or a dog. Either way, they have integrated moderately well into human society, but do retain some of their animal behavior traits.
The former cat works for a pest control company, doing rodent exclusion and trapping. She tends to be aloof with strangers most of the time. She will almost always take the highest seat in the room that can safely hold a human being, or will curl up in small, enclosed spaces. She can be very affectionate, but very much only on her own terms, and will occasionally want to go off and be alone for an hour or two. She has a tendency to visually fixate on, and occasionally bat at or try to trap, small moving objects.
The former dog works for a landscaping company, digging holes to plant things in. He has a tendency to sniff things that humans would not normally sniff. He is physically affectionate to an almost ridiculous degree, not just with you, but with everybody (though not inappropriately so, think hugs, not groping). He can be a little weird about food sometimes (eg always wanting to investigate what other people are eating). He has a tendency to greet you enthusiastically after even a fairly short separation. He's very loyal, and almost always willing to lend a hand.
Both of them have a noticeably better sense of smell than the average human, and while they aren't exactly Mensa candidates, they are within the average range for human intelligence, if perhaps a bit on the low end. They are fully biologically human now, they just retain some old instincts.
Would you be willing to go on a date with either of these individuals? Would you be willing to date either of them long-term? Why or why not? Any other thoughts?
Unfortunately for you, animal cruelty turned out to be a major sin.
Congratulations, you now have $1 billion. But you also have a unique opportunity.
For every $50,000 you agree to have the billion dollars reduced by, you get to, instead, direct the spending of $100 million of the assets of existing billionaires, in a few possible ways.
Donate to a legitimate charity or charities. No funny business here, you know what is and isn't an actual charity. You can either choose a specific charity, choose a category of charities, or let your targets choose.
Fund some sort of legitimate public works projects -- infrastructure, research, environmental restoration, or the like. Again, no funny business, and you can choose specific projects, general categories, or leave it as dealer's choice. Whatever you select, your targets will somehow not materially benefit from their donations, even if they normally would.
Give the money to a legitimate national government (not necessarily their own--taxes, reparations, or the like).
Waste the money in some harmless way. You can't control what, exactly, your target does with this, but they will spend the money in a basically harmless way that does not materially benefit them, for example buying ice sculptures, or nfts.
In any case, you can't reduce your targets below $500 million in total net worth each. Accounting tricks will be ignored, but legitimate debts are subtracted from assets. Your targets will give up/spend the money apparently voluntarily, and no one, not even them, will know that you are behind it.
You have a year to pick your targets, though you have to give up the money right away, and, once chosen, targets have up to a year to make the required outlay(s). You can target people individually, target people by category, or some combination. Each $100 million chunk needs to go to one category, though you can spread out individual targets somewhat (eg different local food banks). You can do this in batches (eg "$1 billion from X to fund Y").
How much, if any, are you keeping for yourself? Roughly how are you spending other people's money? Are you picking specific targets, going based purely on wealth, or some combination? Any other thoughts?
Edit:
Some clarification, and a bonus option.
You potentially have $2 trillion you can redistribute, if you keep none of the money. Each $50,000 you give up lets you make one billionaire or multi-millionaire make one $100 million contribution to an eligible cause.
And, since someone suggested the idea of a bonus if you give up all of the money, if you do decide to give up the entire billion, you can then spend up to $1,000 of your own money, at $1 per $100 million contribution, with the same basic limitations. That is, for every dollar you spend, you get to pick a billionaire and make them spend $100 million.
Also, for the money you are giving up, please give at least some indication of what kind of cause or causes you would be contributing to.
You have been given a billion dollars in credit at Temu. There are a few restrictions on it, but not many.
You cannot sell or directly monetize the credit. For example, having people pay you to buy things for them.
You cannot sell the items you buy in a clearly recognizable form. You can do things like use craft materials to make crafts and sell those, or make things like themed baskets out of disparate items purchased separately, but you need to do more than just, for example, put a few stickers on something in order to sell it.
Other than that, go nuts.
Can you become an actual billionaire (or at least multi-millionaire) from this? Can you use it to do something genuinely interesting?
This is another social experiment from the bored nth dimensional being.
You will get paid a certain amount per day every day that you use your chosen method of medium distance travel at least once, as long as you maintain eligibility. Days when you do not engage in medium distance travel don't count either way, but as soon as you use an unapproved method for medium distance travel, the money ends forever. If you don't engage in medium distance travel, but use your chosen method for at least half a mile (cumulative, about .8 km) of shorter travel, you get half pay.
For the purposes of this question, medium distance travel is defined as any travel where, from door to door by the shortest reasonable route, you are going between 1 mile and 10 miles (~1.6-16 km). If your chosen method requires a vehicle or equipment/protective gear of some sort, it will be provided, you don't have to, eg, care for a horse or lug around a pogo stick when you're not traveling or whatever. It will just show up whenever you want to travel somewhere, and vanish when you are done traveling (except as noted). Your stuff falls to the ground if you're not holding it when the vehicle disappears. (Edit to clarify)
Use of ferries is permitted, and you may use public transportation for journeys over 5 miles (~8 km), as long as you a. use your chosen method for at least a mile per trip, b. only use your chosen method, nothing else, to get to and from the transit station/stop, and c. bring your vehicle with you on the transit, if relevant. But, other than that, you need to use your chosen method essentially from door to door for any journeys of the appropriate length.
You may stop to rest as often as you wish, as long as you do not make any forward progress on your journey by any method other than your chosen one. You may also do things like walk your bicycle/scooter/etc in areas where you are required to do so. If you are using one of the more dangerous methods, you may walk normally when crossing streets with traffic, as long as you make up the distance somewhere safer (she will give you a way to tell). Similar accommodations are allowed for, eg, crossing rough ground, stairs, areas with low ceilings, etc.
Your choices (pick only one):
$5:
Bicycle (normal, with or without a small trailer), electric scooter, horse-drawn cart with a driver
$10:
Walking, horseback riding, horse-drawn cart without a driver, manual scooter, skateboard, recumbent bicycle, tricycle, powered wheelchair/mobility scooter
$20:
Manual wheelchair, skipping, running, walking sideways (ie facing at a right angle to your direction of travel), horse-drawn chariot, unicycle, jumping/bunny hop
$100:
Tiptoe, swinging from ropes like Spider-Man/Tarzan (the ropes magically appear), walking backwards, penny farthing (those bicycles with a giant front wheel), office chair, stilts, pogo stick, walking on a tight rope ~7 feet (~2m) up (it will also magically appear)
$5,000:
Cartwheels, walking on your hands, doing the worm, crawling (you may alternate between any two of these)
If you wish to propose some other method of locomotion, feel free, "she" will tell you the payment if it is accepted.