What if workplaces offered badges that women could choose to wear with deliberately provocative messages like:

• “Criticize my work as harshly as you would a man’s.”
• “Don’t go easy on my work because I’m a woman.”
• “Give me the feedback you’d give a male colleague.”

The idea wouldn’t be that women necessarily receive less criticism in every workplace. It would be to make people consciously question whether they are changing the way they give feedback based on gender.

A manager might look at the badge and think: Would I challenge this idea more directly if a man had proposed it? Would I be less worried about sounding harsh? Would I assume greater competence?

The badges would have to be completely voluntary. Nobody should be pressured to wear one, and the goal wouldn’t be to encourage hostility. It would be a small social experiment designed to make unconscious differences in workplace feedback harder to ignore.

The provocative wording might actually be important. “Treat me equally” is easy to agree with and then forget. “Criticize my work as harshly as you would a man’s” forces you to think about what you actually do.

What do you think of this idea?

I’ve been thinking about this because of my own experience.

I’m 30 and, over the last couple of years, I’ve lost a huge amount — relationships, friendships, work, my home and the future I thought I had. I’ve made mistakes, dealt with trauma, loneliness and some incredibly dark thoughts. There have been times when I genuinely didn’t know how to keep going.
But I’m still here.

And I keep thinking: what if there was one place designed specifically for men who feel like they have nowhere to turn?

Not just another awareness campaign telling men to “talk”.

An actual charity built around four things:

🎙️** A podcas**t — real men telling real stories about divorce, addiction, loneliness, fatherhood, grief, failure, trauma, relationships and starting again.

📝 A blog — honest, relatable articles written by men for men, covering things we often struggle to talk about.

💬 An online forum — anonymous, judgement-free conversations where a man can say “I’m not okay” without being told to man up.

📞 A dedicated phone line — somewhere a man can actually pick up the phone and speak to another person when things are getting too much, with trained people who can listen and signpost
professional help where needed.
The idea wouldn’t be to replace therapy or the NHS. It would be about creating the first step — somewhere a man can go before he reaches crisis point.

I’ve been that man.

If something like this had existed when I was at my lowest, maybe I would’ve reached out sooner.
So I’d love to hear what people think.

If you could create one thing to help men with their mental health, what would it be?

Maybe we could actually build something from this.

​

I've been thinking about the current state of the world and why it feels so different from what previous generations told us the future would look like.

I'm not saying the world has never been divided, unstable, or dangerous. Obviously it has. What feels different to me is the scale, speed, and interconnectedness of everything.

So I started looking at the period from roughly 1870–1910, when America was going through industrialization, mass communication, railroads, huge corporations, immigration, urbanization, economic crises, labor unrest, political violence, and major changes in government.

Then I started comparing it to 2008–today.

Not because I think history repeats itself exactly. It doesn't. I'm more interested in whether the patterns and mechanisms repeat.

Here's the comparison I came up with:

Industrial TransitionDigital Transition1873: Panic of 1873. Railroad speculation and financial instability contribute to a major economic crisis.2008: Global Financial Crisis. Housing/financial speculation collapses and causes a worldwide recession.1877: Great Railroad Strike. A labor dispute spreads across the country and federal troops intervene.2011–12: Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring. Economic inequality and distrust of institutions become mass political movements, amplified by new communication technology.1881: President Garfield is assassinated.2013–14: Snowden revelations, growing surveillance concerns, smartphones and social media becoming dominant.1886: Haymarket Affair. Labor conflict becomes associated with radicalism, political violence and fears about social order.2015–16: Trump, Brexit, populism, immigration politics, and social media becoming a major political battlefield.1890: Sherman Antitrust Act. Government starts realizing that industrial corporations have become powerful enough to require new rules.2017–19: Governments increasingly confront the power of major technology platforms and the question of how to regulate companies that have outgrown old frameworks.1892: Homestead Strike. Armed conflict between workers and private security.2020: COVID, economic shutdowns, mass protests, political conflict, misinformation and institutional distrust all collide.1893: Panic of 1893. Severe depression, banking failures and unemployment.2020–22: Pandemic recession, inflation, supply-chain disruption and economic instability.1894: Pullman Strike and Coxey's Army. Economic frustration becomes mass political action, with federal intervention.2021: January 6 and the aftermath. Political conflict turns directly toward questions about the legitimacy of government and elections.1896: McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan. A huge political realignment centered around economics, populism and competing visions of America.2024: Trump vs. Harris. Another intensely polarized election centered around economics, immigration, institutions, national identity and competing visions of America.1898: Spanish-American War. Foreign conflict, nationalism and mass media combine, and America becomes a much more significant global power.2022–26: Ukraine, China/U.S. rivalry, Middle East conflicts, cyberwarfare and AI competition increasingly interact with domestic politics.1899–1901: U.S. expands its global role. McKinley is assassinated; Theodore Roosevelt becomes president; U.S. Steel is created.2025–26: AI becomes a major economic, political and geopolitical technology. We don't know what comes next yet.

The individual events aren't equivalent. A labor strike isn't the same thing as a pandemic, and a telegraph isn't the same thing as social media.

What's interesting is the sequence:

New technology → economic transformation → enormous concentrations of power → inequality/disruption → political polarization → distrust → social conflict → major shocks → government struggles to adapt → new institutions and rules.

That's what makes me wonder if we're somewhere in the middle of a similar transition.

And I think 2008 is a better starting point than 2000 for this comparison.

The internet and globalization were already transforming society before then, but 2008 is where several trends started crashing into each other in a way that became impossible to ignore.

After 2008 we got:

The financial crisis

The rise of smartphones

Social media becoming the primary information environment

Increasing political polarization

Brexit

Trump

Increasing distrust of traditional institutions

COVID

Mass political unrest

Supply-chain disruption

Inflation

Ukraine

Increasing U.S.-China competition

AI going from a specialist technology to something ordinary people can use

And now we're adding AI on top of an already unfinished transition.

That's what scares me.

We've never had this exact combination before.

We have instant global communication, nuclear weapons, cyberwarfare, satellites, autonomous systems, global financial markets, biotechnology, AI-generated information, and billions of people carrying supercomputers in their pockets.

So I don't think we should blindly say:

"The 1890s happened and everything eventually worked out, so we're fine."

That's too simplistic.

The destructive potential today is vastly greater.

But our ability to respond is also vastly greater.

The more useful lesson from the 1890s is that societies can spend decades feeling like the old rules don't work anymore before eventually creating new institutions around the new technology.

The people living in 1893 didn't know they were living through "the Gilded Age."

They just knew the banks were failing, people were losing jobs, politicians were screaming at each other, labor conflicts were becoming violent, newspapers were blaming different groups, and nobody knew what was coming next.

Historians get to look backward and connect the dots.

We don't have that luxury.

We're the idiots currently standing in the middle of the construction site.

So I've started thinking about the present differently.

Instead of asking:

"What disaster happens next?"

I'd rather watch for escalation between systems.

For example:

Economic problems → political radicalization

Local conflict → national/global information crisis

Political disagreement → political violence

Foreign conflict → domestic polarization

New technology → institutions unable to regulate it

Emergency measures → permanent government powers

Information uncertainty → competing realities

And especially:

multiple problems happening at the same time and reinforcing each other.

That last one seems like the biggest warning sign.

One recession isn't necessarily catastrophic.

One political controversy isn't necessarily catastrophic.

One technological disruption isn't necessarily catastrophic.

But if you get:

economic instability + political legitimacy crisis + geopolitical conflict + information chaos + technological disruption

all at once, that's when the historical analogy becomes much more concerning.

And that's also where the analogy eventually stops being useful, because modern technology gives us entirely new possibilities.

So I'm not trying to predict that "1898 happened, therefore X will happen in 2028."

I'm trying to use history as a crude forecasting framework.

And if the comparison is even remotely useful, there are a few things I'd expect to watch over the next several years.

2026–2028: AI becomes political infrastructure

The argument probably shifts from:

"Is AI useful?"

to:

"Who controls it, who benefits from it, who loses jobs to it, who pays for the infrastructure, and what happens when it influences politics and information?"

AI regulation, data centers, energy use, copyright, surveillance, national security and employment could increasingly become mainstream political issues.

2027–2030: The economic consequences become clearer

The biggest thing I'd watch isn't simply whether AI makes companies more profitable.

I'd watch who gets the productivity gains.

If AI substantially increases productivity but the benefits concentrate among a relatively small number of companies and people, expect enormous political pressure over:

automation

wages

unemployment

taxation

redistribution

labor protections

corporate power

If AI instead creates enough new industries and jobs to broadly raise living standards, the political reaction could look completely different.

The distribution of the gains may matter more than the technology itself.

2028–2032: Political realignment becomes possible

This is another thing I'd watch closely.

AI could create strange political alliances that don't fit neatly into today's Democratic/Republican structure.

People could find themselves agreeing across party lines about:

AI regulation

automation

privacy

surveillance

monopolies

data centers

energy

employment

The existing political coalitions aren't guaranteed to survive a major technological transformation.

That's exactly what happened during previous periods of economic and technological change.

Early-to-mid 2030s: Institutional restructuring

If the historical pattern holds, this is where I'd expect society to increasingly develop rules for the new system.

That could mean:

new AI regulations

new labor laws

new approaches to education

new social programs

new antitrust rules

new media standards

new international agreements

new approaches to privacy and surveillance

new political coalitions

Basically, society figuring out how to operate the machine it accidentally built.

But there's another possibility.

The transition could be interrupted by a much larger external shock, just as previous transitions were affected by wars, depressions, pandemics and political crises.

That's why I don't think we should try to predict one specific event.

I'd rather watch the conditions that make major events more likely.

The five things I'd keep an eye on are:

IndicatorLower concernHigher concernEconomyGrowth broadly sharedSevere unemployment + wealth concentrationPoliticsFierce disagreementOpponents viewed as existential enemiesInformationCompeting opinionsPeople can't agree on basic factsTechnologyInstitutions adaptingTechnology advancing faster than institutionsGeopoliticsCompetitionMajor powers directly confronting each other

The really dangerous situation isn't necessarily one of these becoming severe.

It's several of them becoming severe at the same time.

That's the lesson I'd take from the late 1800s.

The Gilded Age wasn't scary because America experienced one terrible event.

It was scary because economic, technological, political and social stresses repeatedly reinforced one another.

And that's what I'd watch today.

Not whether the next event looks exactly like something from 1894.

Instead:

Does it reinforce an existing problem?

Does it spread faster than institutions can respond?

Does it cross from one system into another?

Does it create a new political movement?

Does it cause people to lose trust in institutions?

Does another crisis hit before the first one has been resolved?

That's the closest thing I can think of to a historical early-warning system.

Maybe we're not watching the end of the world.

Maybe we're watching the old version of the world become obsolete while the next version is being built.

And if that's what's happening, we're probably going to spend a while feeling exactly like the people living through 1893, 1898 or 1901:

confused, divided, technologically overwhelmed, and completely unable to see what the next chapter looks like.

The difference is that someday, people will look back at 2026 and probably see a pattern that seems obvious in hindsight.

We just happen to be the idiots currently standing in the middle of the construction site.

Instead of mainly teaching students that bullying is wrong, schools could teach the science of why bullying happens.

Bullying can often be explained in terms of predictable incentives: peer approval, status, attention, fear of becoming a target, group conformity, and low expected consequences.

Teaching this to everyone could change how bullying is perceived. A bully who thinks they are being powerful, independent, or rebellious might be less impressed with their own behavior after realizing that everyone around them can recognize the fairly predictable social forces driving it.

If you bully because your friends laugh, because it improves your status, or because you are afraid of being targeted yourself, are you really acting independently?

The idea would be to make bullying less mysterious and less impressive by explaining it scientifically. Potential bullies might even respond by rebelling against the very incentives that are pushing them toward bullying.

In other words, make bullying predictable enough that not bullying becomes the rebellious choice.

Why the brackets in the title is I wasn't sure what kind of female nature/forest-associated creature would make this hypothetical female protagonist still plant/tree-like enough for my purposes while still rendering her mobile enough for the story to have a plot.

But anyway what my purposes are is finally putting an end to the whole man vs bear crap by subsuming those arguments into fandom of a thing or w/e (that is also a thing that the demographic who hates that hypothetical would avoid) as by having a romance story between two supernatural creatures one of whom is a treelike-but-still-mobile woman and one of whom is a black man who can transform into a bear all the story would have to have amidst however the plot would go is them meet-cute-ing in the woods and at some point him being emotionally vulnerable with her/sharing-feelings-that-aren't-just-a-realization-of-love, we've wiped-away-via-replacing-baggage-with-fandom-associations not just the original question about being in the woods with a man or a bear but the attempted counters of claiming the question's sexist because if you say black man or bear it sounds racist and of asking if you'd rather share your feelings with a woman or a tree by having a black bear-man meet a tree-woman in the woods and at some point share his feelings with her

Metaphorical bonus points, if anyone actually wants to write this, if you give the non-romance-plot/circumstances-the-romance-happens-in-or-w/e some kind of themes about gender expectations and toxic masculinity and stuff that doesn't just get cute-meta by referencing the thought experiment in any way

In the near future, a company sells humanoid robots for one purpose only: raising children in a religion chosen by parents who do not practice that religion themselves.

The service is especially popular with secular couples whose families will only accept their marriage if they promise to raise their future children within a particular faith.

The parents choose the religion, denomination, and level of observance. The robot takes the children to services, teaches prayers and doctrine, observes holidays, follows dietary rules, and handles the rest of their religious upbringing.

For one couple, it seems like the perfect compromise. Their parents approve of the marriage, the children receive the promised religious upbringing, and the couple never has to become religious themselves.

Years later, however, the children begin asking an uncomfortable question:

Why did our parents have a machine teach us beliefs they don't believe themselves?

The movie would explore religion, family pressure, parenting, and what it really means to raise a child in a faith.

Big ships are too thick to fill them with rooms that all have a window. Instead of using the central parts for common space, fill them with cargo, like shipping containers or maybe bulk cargo.

Have few corridors across the width, on ends and middle. Restaurant might be the biggest common space. Gym area for stretching+jumping+short runs on soft surface and sauna too, below water line.

This is more for slow travel from a to b than cruise. Can be more useful time than in a plane with low oxygen, ear trouble and small sitting space. Both can have satellite internet and maybe near ground also a microwave link to horizon, increasing capacity.

An evil entity discovers a weakness in a town: people already hate doing the tedious responsibilities of adult life.

So it makes them much worse.

Whenever someone pays bills, makes appointments, deals with insurance, signs paperwork, schedules repairs, or takes responsibility for something, they experience terrifying hallucinations and manifestations that can cause lasting psychological trauma.

The manifestations stop if they abandon the task.

Eventually everyone starts avoiding adulting. At first it seems like the obvious solution. Then the town falls apart.

Garbage piles up. Repairs stop. Businesses and utilities fail. Nobody wants to make decisions, sign anything, take charge, or promise to handle something.

The entity barely has to destroy anything itself. It simply takes something people already dislike and makes avoiding it so appealing that they gradually dismantle their own society.

The climax could involve the protagonist forcing herself through a series of essential mundane tasks while enduring increasingly traumatic manifestations, knowing she may be permanently scarred even if she succeeds.

In the final scene, she opens a piece of mail she has been avoiding. The entity appears behind her.

She keeps reading.

P.S. You could make the manifestations cause physical damage such as vacuuming causing permanent hearing damage, etc.

What if leash laws allowed a dog to be tethered to an autonomous robotic dog instead of directly to its owner?

The robot would act like a playmate most of the time—walking, running, and interacting with the real dog—but also manage a variable-length tether. In safe areas it could give the dog lots of freedom, then shorten the tether near roads, crowds, unfamiliar dogs, or other hazards.

If the dog suddenly bolted or became aggressive, the robot could brake, brace itself, or pull the dog away.

The idea is that instead of restricting a dog’s movement for an entire walk, you only restrain it when necessary. If the technology became reliable enough, this could potentially preserve public safety while giving dogs much more freedom.

Would that be a more humane alternative to conventional leash laws?

Movie theaters and studios could let ticket buyers submit a short idea for a sequel after seeing a movie. The best 10% of submissions would get their ticket price refunded.

AI could do the initial evaluation, so studios wouldn't have to read millions of pitches. Only a tiny fraction of the strongest ideas would be forwarded to human producers for possible consideration when developing a sequel.

Each ticket could allow one submission, which would discourage spam and make the refund feel like a reward for actually contributing a good idea.

Studios would also get valuable audience research about which characters, storylines, and directions people are most interested in.

And it could give people another reason to go to movie theaters instead of waiting for streaming. Going to the theater wouldn't just mean watching the movie. You'd also get a chance to participate in what might come next, and potentially earn back the entire cost of your ticket.

What if increasingly obvious glitches in reality made it almost certain that we live in a simulation?

Scientists discover that some glitches have specific, reproducible triggers. People start cataloging them and changing their behavior to avoid dangerous ones.

The main characters are a small research team: one wants to understand and exploit the glitches, another fears their experiments are destabilizing reality, and a third is caught between scientific curiosity and the growing risk.

Then, in the third act, the Empire State Building suddenly disappears with everyone inside.

The team has to reconstruct exactly what triggered the bug and figure out whether it can be reversed. They eventually conclude that the building may not be destroyed, just stuck in a state where the rest of reality can no longer interact with it.

For the climax, they attempt to recreate the trigger in reverse. The building reappears, but the people inside insist they never disappeared. From their perspective, it was the rest of Manhattan that vanished.

It is now obvious that the world has changed forever. As simulation bugs become more frequent, living in it will always be like walking on eggshells.

There should be a restaurant designed for couples who want to eat together without being judged for what they order.

You would sit across from each other, but instead of looking directly at your partner, there would be a two-sided display between you showing a live video feed of them. Computer vision would automatically pixelate their food, plate, and anything else that could reveal what they ordered, while leaving their face and gestures clearly visible.

So you could still have a normal face-to-face conversation, but you might see your spouse happily eating some mysterious pixelated blob without knowing whether it is a salad, a giant cheeseburger, or an enormous dessert.

Each person would order privately, and of course they would get separate bills.

The idea is to let couples enjoy eating together while giving each person complete privacy over what they actually chose to eat.

Would you go to such a restaurant?

Scientists invent a blood test that detects a marker linked to the brain activity associated with conscious wakefulness.

Most people have it. Some don't.

People who test negative still seem completely normal. They talk, work, fall in love, feel pain, and insist they are conscious. But scientists begin to suspect they may be philosophical zombies: people who behave normally but have no inner experience.

Soon they face discrimination. Employers reject them, dating apps filter them out, and politicians argue they should have fewer rights because they supposedly cannot suffer.

The main characters could be a neuroscientist who helped develop the test, her husband who unexpectedly tests negative, and an activist fighting for the rights of negative testers.

The central problem is that nobody can prove whether the test really detects consciousness. Anything a negative person says to prove they are conscious can be dismissed with: "A philosophical zombie would say that too."

In the third act, negative testers lose legal personhood and hospitals begin harvesting their organs for conscious patients. The neuroscientist's husband is selected because his organs could save several people.

At the climax, he is awake and terrified, begging not to be killed, while doctors argue that none of this proves he is actually experiencing anything.

An emergency court ruling stops the procedure. Her husband lives, and organ harvesting is banned, not because the court proves negative testers are conscious, but because society cannot justify killing people simply because it cannot prove that they are.

Negative testers regain legal protection, but discrimination and suspicion continue.

The movie ends without ever revealing whether they really are conscious.

A group of professors from different fields lose their jobs as AI takes over more teaching and research. They enter a retraining program where they're all competing for one kindergarten teaching position.

Each becomes convinced their own field reveals how kindergarten should really be taught.

The mathematician thinks base 10 only makes sense if children first understand other number bases, so he starts with binary and base 5. By recess, several kids are no longer sure what “10” means.

The philosopher turns a lesson on colors into a discussion of whether everyone really experiences “red” the same way.

The economist replaces sharing with a classroom market. Within days, one child owns most of the crayons and another is lending stickers at interest.

The historian refuses to teach anything without context. Asked to explain Thanksgiving, he works backward through colonialism, the Reformation, medieval Europe, and Rome. Thanksgiving arrives before he gets back to the Pilgrims.

The literature professor replaces children's books with serious fiction and assures the baffled class that not understanding it is “part of the experience.”

Eventually their attempts to outdo one another turn the classroom into an academic arms race. In the final evaluation, everything falls apart and they only succeed when they abandon their theories and start working together.

But there is still only one job.

Underneath the comedy, it would be about people who spent decades becoming experts at something, only to discover that the abilities society still values most may be ones they barely considered skills at all.

Transit vehicles can sometimes have extremely loud announcements, warning tones, or other sounds. The problem is that you often don't realize a particular bus or subway car is too loud for you until you're already riding it.

Transit systems should put earplug dispensers inside the vehicles themselves, dispensing individually wrapped foam earplugs for a low price.

What do you think of this idea?

A biologist discovers that a normal biological virus has been infecting people’s brains for years, and that what society casually called “smartphone zombies” was actually one of its symptoms from the beginning. The virus causes compulsive phone fixation, reduced awareness of surroundings, and an inability to disengage from the screen.

The discovery throws society into panic. People start deliberately looking up every few seconds, making eye contact, and avoiding phone use while walking so nobody mistakes them for infected. Someone staring at a phone too long can empty a subway car. Suspected smartphone zombies are shunned, assaulted, and sometimes killed, even though scientists insist they are not actually violent.

Then a second virus appears.

For most people it causes an ordinary illness. But if someone already carries the smartphone-zombie virus, the combination causes extreme aggression and sends them on violent killing sprees like traditional movie zombies.

Now society’s paranoia suddenly has a real basis, but most smartphone zombies are still harmless. Nobody can tell which ones are coinfected until they become violent.

The biologist who originally sounded the alarm now has to deal with the consequences of the discovery while trying to convince people that being a smartphone zombie does not automatically make someone a monster.

A recurring visual could be people nervously watching someone stare at a phone in public, wondering whether they are harmless or about to turn violent.

And for most of the movie, everyone wants smartphone zombies to look up from their phones. By the end, when one finally does look up, that is when everyone starts running.

What do you think of this movie idea? Are there any movies like it?

Accessibility law already recognizes that people should be allowed to use technology to overcome limitations that would otherwise hinder them at work, in education, or in daily life. Maybe that principle should now extend to AI.

Compared with modern AI, every human has cognitive limitations in some areas, whether in memory, calculation, writing, translation, coding, organization, or processing large amounts of information. AI can increasingly compensate for those limitations.

If we don't object to people using glasses, hearing aids, screen readers, speech recognition, or calculators when those tools don't interfere with an essential requirement, why should AI automatically be different?

Banning AI use can mean artificially enforcing a cognitive disability that technology could remove.

This wouldn't mean AI must always be allowed. Schools could still test unaided skills, and employers could restrict AI for legitimate privacy, security, or safety reasons.

But perhaps accessibility laws should generally protect people's right to use cognitive-assistance technology unless there is a real reason they must perform a task unaided.

A medical breakthrough is discovered that can stop aging, but it can't reverse aging that has already happened.

The movie focuses on an uncomfortable consequence: some adult children deliberately try to keep the breakthrough secret from their elderly parents.

Maybe they're exhausted from years of caregiving. Maybe they're thinking about inheritance. Maybe they can't imagine caring for an already-frail parent indefinitely. Or maybe they genuinely believe that stopping aging at 90 wouldn't be good for their parent.

Eventually, the parents find out.

They realize their own children knew about a treatment that could prevent their deaths and intentionally kept it from them. Some of the parents become furious and desperate, especially if their children try to stop them from leaving to get the treatment.

That could lead to physical confrontations, with elderly parents attacking or fighting past their own children in order to escape and reach a clinic on their own. From the parents' perspective, they aren't just running away from controlling children. They're fighting for their lives.

The anti-aging breakthrough would mostly be a way to explore family relationships, caregiving, autonomy, inheritance, and the uncomfortable question of whether living indefinitely is something we would want not just for ourselves, but for everyone we love.

In the future, military personnel are required to undergo brain surgery that removes their ability to feel physical pain and prevents them from panicking when they see catastrophic injuries.

Instead of pain, they get much more useful real-time health telemetry. If someone is shot, burned, has a broken bone, or even loses a limb, their system tells them exactly how serious it is, how much blood they’re losing, how much mobility they have left, and how long they can safely keep fighting.

A soldier could suffer an absolutely horrific-looking injury, calmly check the telemetry, perform emergency surgery on himself if necessary, and then continue the mission. Something that would normally be impossible because of agony or panic could become almost like repairing damaged equipment in the field.

This could make it the most violent war movie ever made, but the violence would have a purpose. The disturbing part would be the contrast between what the audience sees and how calmly the soldiers react to it.

The deeper idea would be what happens once pain and panic are no longer limits on how much damage soldiers can endure. Commanders might start treating a soldier’s body like a resource that can be spent: “You still have 70% combat effectiveness and only a 15% risk of permanent disability, so keep going.”

The technology could actually work extremely well. The horror would come from what the military does with people once suffering is no longer what forces them to stop.

Are there any movies like this? Would you watch this movie?