r/ideas

Kids probably overhear a huge amount of conversation between their parents about bills, groceries, appointments, home repairs, work schedules, insurance, and other household logistics.

Obviously those conversations are necessary, and children shouldn't be given some fake impression that adulthood involves no responsibilities. But I wonder whether there is a downside if most of the adult conversation they overhear is like this. It could make marriage and adulthood look incredibly boring: two people gradually turning into household administrators.

Maybe parents should deliberately maintain interests that give them more interesting things to talk about around their children. One easy example would be keeping up with science news. Imagine growing up regularly overhearing your parents talking about a new discovery in astronomy, some bizarre animal behavior, an archaeological find, a medical breakthrough, AI, evolution, or a scientific mystery.

The point wouldn't be to stage conversations for the children. The parents would actually be keeping themselves intellectually engaged, and the children would happen to witness it.

That might communicate something valuable: becoming an adult doesn't mean curiosity ends and life becomes nothing but errands and financial obligations. Adults can still learn things, get excited about ideas, disagree about interesting questions, and be surprised by the world.

Maybe one underrated responsibility of parents is to make adulthood look like something worth growing into.

I think Reddit discussions about AI would be more useful if people were more open about the difference between why they personally oppose AI and the reasons they give other people for avoiding it.

My suspicion is that a large amount of anti-AI sentiment is ultimately driven by fear of economic or professional displacement. That doesn't necessarily mean literally losing a job. It could mean lower pay, fewer opportunities, less demand for a skill, or seeing something you spent years learning suddenly become much cheaper and easier to produce.

But there are good reasons people might not say that directly.

Admitting "I'm afraid AI could make my skills less valuable or threaten my livelihood" can make someone feel vulnerable. It might even feel embarrassing, since it can sound like admitting that a machine is becoming capable of doing something you considered a valuable part of your expertise.

More importantly, it's a poor argument for convincing other people not to use AI. Someone who doesn't feel threatened by AI might simply respond, "I understand why you don't like it, but it makes my life easier, so why shouldn't I use it?"

That gives people an incentive to emphasize arguments that apply to everyone instead: AI is unethical, it's theft, it's environmentally harmful, it makes people lazy, it destroys creativity, and so on.

Those concerns can be sincere. I'm not saying everyone making them is lying. My point is that the stated argument may not be the main reason that person is so strongly opposed to AI in the first place.

I think Reddit should encourage people discussing AI to be clearer about this distinction. If someone's primary concern is that AI threatens their income, career, or professional status, saying so would make the discussion much more transparent. Then everyone could distinguish between "here is why AI threatens me" and "here is why I think you shouldn't use AI either."

That would make arguments about AI easier to evaluate and probably lead to more productive discussions than having the underlying motivation remain unspoken.

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.

Let's say a video game company worked with a BCI company (Brain Computer Interface). And they combined their powers to create a game where you insert a computer chip into your skull (minimally invasive but it does require some stiches right at the top of your spine.) But it gives you Full Dive VR into a variaty of very popular games. It's passed FDA checks *, and is currently in beta phase, and so far the reveiws say it's amazing and just like you close your eyes in real life and you open them in the game world with all your powers.

Would you join the beta?

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.

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.

Before Reddit actually submits a post or comment, AI could read it and give the user detailed feedback.

It could point out things like questionable factual claims, unclear reasoning, unnecessary hostility, misunderstandings of what someone else said, missing context, repetition, or ways the contribution could be more useful.

Then Reddit could simply ask: “After reading this feedback, do you still want to submit this?”

The AI wouldn’t rewrite the comment automatically or have the power to block it. The user could ignore all of the feedback and submit exactly what they wrote.

The point would be to give everyone an informed second chance to reconsider what they’re about to post. Considering how much Reddit discussion is hurt by impulsive replies, misunderstandings, weak arguments, and avoidable hostility, routinely getting detailed AI feedback before submitting could substantially improve the quality of discussion.

What do you think of this idea?

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.

I recently got my license, and I would like to start giving out care packages to homeless people in my area. My issue is that I do not know what to put inside care packages. What do homeless people need? How can I help them? Before, I thought homelessness was a very simple thing, cut and dry, but giving somebody shampoo when they do not have access to clean water or a place to shower is not helpful. I have gained a lot of insight recently. What are some things I shouldn't give out?

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?

If a car owner keeps ignoring a maintenance issue, the car would start talking out loud while parked so nearby strangers can hear it.

For example: “Please tell my owner I’m overdue for an oil change.”

For more serious safety problems, such as dangerously worn brakes or tires, the car could sound increasingly distressed, even groaning in pain while trying to speak. The worse or more urgent the problem, the more pathetic and embarrassing the car sounds.

The idea is to use social pressure to make people less likely to ignore maintenance warnings. A dashboard light is easy to put off indefinitely. A car loudly complaining about its suffering in a parking lot might be harder to ignore.

Besides being funny, it would improve car safety by encouraging people to fix things like worn brakes, bad tires, or other potentially dangerous problems sooner.

P.S. If you can't afford the maintenance/repair, you can take public transportation until you can.

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?

It should be basic etiquette that you do not suddenly shout when someone is standing a few feet away from you.

Yet at fast-food restaurants, employees sometimes call out completed order numbers at full volume even when a customer happens to be standing immediately beside the counter. Apparently, because it is an “order number,” normal rules about not shouting in someone’s face or ear no longer apply.

McDonald’s and similar restaurants should have a simple policy: if a customer is standing nearby, either lower your voice, turn away from them, step back, or use the order display instead.

Yes, employees need to make sure people can hear their numbers. That does not mean they need to blast the ears of whoever happens to be closest to them.

Shouting right next to another person is extremely rude in almost every other social situation. Working behind a fast-food counter shouldn’t magically make it acceptable.

What do you think?

Imagine a movie with a large ensemble cast, maybe 10 or 20 major characters.

At first, every actor is playing one character normally.

Then the casting starts changing.

But it isn't a body-swap story, and it isn't just two characters exchanging actors. The whole cast keeps getting reshuffled among all the roles.

An actor who was the father might later be the detective. The detective's actor might become the neighbor. The neighbor's actor might become the boss. Later, all of them may be playing completely different characters again.

The characters themselves remain perfectly continuous. They keep the same names, personalities, memories, relationships, and storylines. Nobody reacts to the fact that a completely different actor is now playing someone.

The reshuffling could happen over and over throughout the movie, possibly becoming more frequent as it goes on. Eventually a character could even be played by different actors in consecutive shots of the same scene.

There is never any explanation. In the fictional world, nothing unusual has happened.

The idea would be to make the audience gradually stop thinking of an actor's face as the identity of a character. Instead, you would have to recognize characters through their dialogue, clothing, behavior, relationships, and context.

With enough actors and enough reshuffling, I think it could start as a funny gimmick and turn into a genuinely strange filmmaking experiment.

Has anything like this ever been done?

P.S. I wonder if people with face blindness might actually have an advantage watching this movie, since they may already rely more on things like clothing, behavior, and context rather than faces to keep track of people.

For most of history, parents had a good reason to teach their children all the practical things they had learned through experience: how to maintain a house, fix things, clean things properly, troubleshoot appliances, and so on.

But AI and YouTube change that.

A tech-savvy child probably doesn't want to sit through explanations of things they can easily look up years later when the need actually arises. There isn't much reason to teach someone how to replace a toilet flapper at 16 if they can get an AI explanation and watch a video showing exactly how to do it at 30.

Taken seriously, this could mean that 99% of the practical knowledge parents accumulated through life experience is no longer particularly important to pass down. That's probably difficult for parents to accept, because passing on what you've learned has traditionally been a major part of parenting.

What may matter much more now is teaching the higher-level stuff: notice when something is wrong, don't neglect maintenance, know basic safety, understand when you need a professional, and be willing to learn how to solve a problem.

Instead of teaching children everything you know, maybe the modern goal should be teaching them how to recognize what they need to know and then find out when they need it.

​

I'm thinking about a platform that combines short-form video, live streams, real-world tasks, and community-funded rewards.

The basic idea:

Someone creates a task:

“Help 5 people with a meal — starting reward ₹500.”

Another user accepts the task and goes live while completing it. The audience can watch the task happening in real time.

But here's the interesting part:

The audience can increase or extend the reward.

For example:

Initial task: Feed 5 people → ₹500

Viewer A: “I'll add ₹1,000 if you also provide clothes.”

Viewer B: “I'll add another ₹500 if you also provide footwear.”

Now the original ₹500 task has evolved into a larger community-funded mission.

The person completing the task can accept or reject additional conditions. If they accept, the extra reward is added to the task pool.

The platform would have 4 main participants

1. Task creators

Create missions and put an initial reward behind them.

2. Performers

Accept tasks and complete them live.

3. Contributors/viewers

Watch the live task and contribute additional rewards or optional extensions.

4. Audience

Gets entertaining/meaningful live content and can follow how a task evolves.

The economic loop

Task → Initial reward → Performer accepts → Live execution → Audience watches → Community adds rewards → Bigger mission → More interesting content → More users.

The platform could eventually make money through advertising, sponsored tasks, and a platform fee on transactions.

I'm also thinking of using an in-app coin/credit system so users don't directly move money around for every individual action. Real-money deposits, withdrawals, verification, fraud prevention, and compliance would obviously need to be designed properly.

Why I find the idea interesting

Traditional social media is basically:

People create content → other people watch it → platform shows ads.

This would be:

People create real-world missions → other people fund/complete them → the execution becomes live content → people watch and participate → platform monetizes the attention.

So the content isn't created just for views. The content is a by-product of something actually happening.

I've found platforms that cover individual pieces of this idea (bounties, crowdfunding, task marketplaces, etc.), but I haven't found a major consumer social platform combining all of these into one system.

My questions:

Would you personally use/watch something like this?

What would make you contribute money to someone else's task?

Do you think the live aspect adds value or is it unnecessary?

What is the biggest flaw you see in this model?

Does this sound like a real startup opportunity or just an interesting feature?

I'm looking for criticism, not validation. Please tell me why this would fail if you think it would.