Internet es para compartir (aunque parezca que solo existe para discutir), por lo que propongo que hagamos que regrese a su principal propósito.

Volvamos a usar eMule y otras plataformas de intercambio de conocimiento, cultura y entretenimiento.

¡Abandonemos la hostilidad y regresemos a la solidaridad!

Schools should require students to use a different word processor for every assignment, without teaching them how to use each one. Students would have to figure that out on their own.

The goal wouldn't be to teach students a particular piece of software, but to develop mental flexibility and the ability to adapt to unfamiliar interfaces. Instead of becoming dependent on Microsoft Word or Google Docs, students would learn how to explore new applications and figure out how to accomplish what they need.

This would also make it easier for students to use free alternatives to commercial software, even when their interfaces are quite different from what they're accustomed to.

The larger idea is that schools shouldn't just teach students how to use particular tools. They should teach students how to figure out tools they've never encountered before.

I'm exploring a dunk app that uses AI to review your jump video and adapt training to one- or two-foot takeoffs and the equipment you have. My take: another exercise list isn't worth a subscription; useful feedback on your actual jump might be. If you're chasing your first dunk, would you pay for that, or is YouTube enough—and why?

Imagine highly selective private universities where students wouldn't pay tuition. Instead, they'd get paid to attend and would even receive a grant upon graduation to help launch their careers, start businesses, or pursue research.

In exchange, the university would receive a small percentage of each graduate's lifetime earnings, whether from salaries, businesses, or investments. The government would collect these payments through the tax system and transfer them to the privately operated university.

Investors would provide the initial funding, with returns coming from graduates' future earnings.

Just as getting into Y Combinator can significantly improve a startup founder's chances of success, admission to one of these universities could become a major career advantage.

The university's financial success would depend on its graduates' financial success, giving it strong incentives to provide exceptional education, mentorship, professional connections, and support long after graduation.

Instead of charging students for an education, these universities would become lifelong investors in human potential.

AI companies should offer cash rewards to users who demonstrate creative or analytical thinking that exceeds their AI's capabilities.

This wouldn't have to involve a major scientific discovery or an important real-world problem. For example, someone developing a niche puzzle game might invent a clever gameplay mechanic that the AI hadn't considered. If the AI recognizes that the user's idea is better than anything it came up with, that could potentially earn the user a reward.

Similarly, someone might discover a more elegant solution to a mathematical or programming problem than the AI was able to produce.

The main restriction would be that companies shouldn't have to pay again for something substantially similar to an already rewarded contribution.

The AI could automatically flag potentially qualifying contributions during ordinary conversations. A verification process could then establish whether the contribution genuinely exceeds the AI's capabilities and is sufficiently novel.

What's in it for AI companies?

They would gain a continuous stream of examples of where their AI falls short, both creatively and analytically. These examples could reveal limitations that conventional benchmarks might never uncover and help companies improve their models.

It would also encourage users to challenge AI systems, explore new ideas, and contribute insights from countless niche areas that AI researchers might otherwise overlook.

The rewards wouldn't depend on the commercial value or importance of the contributions. They would be for demonstrating intellectual capabilities that the AI lacks.

Instead of users always paying AI companies for intelligence, sometimes AI companies would pay users for intelligence their models lack.

P.S. Maybe the math research community wouldn't be so upset if they can get paid for cleaning up and simplifying the released AI math proofs as part of this reverse payment system.

Elderly people with hearing loss may hear coughing and sneezing but miss quieter sounds like sniffling, which could indicate that someone nearby is sick.

Smartphones could detect sniffling and produce a distinctive vibration, allowing users to keep their distance if they choose.

Although sniffling doesn't necessarily indicate an infection, this optional feature could help vulnerable people reduce their exposure to respiratory illnesses. Sound recognition could run entirely on-device to protect privacy.

Parents who send their children to religious schools might not realize that their children could become far more religious than they are.

Imagine sending your child to a religious school to learn traditional values, only to have them come home convinced that you're going to burn in hell unless you change your beliefs. They might even remind you of this every day, sincerely believing they're trying to save you.

Religious schools that teach eternal damnation should be required to warn parents about this possibility before enrollment.

Pair of metal objects that reflect sound much more to the direction where the sound came from, could be identified from their mutual distance and bearing. Their bearing and distance to the ship sonar gives ship location.

This works with simpler and weaker sonar than the kind that is needed for shipwreck searches.

Traffic signs have retro-reflectors for light. Some moonlanding sites and satellites have them with narrower beams. Radar reflectors are used and incidentally this for sound would probably also happen to work for radar too when the object is above water but that does not matter.

The object might be 5 meters wide, stainless steel and coated with teflon. It is just dropped to sea and it sinks upright. Later it's exact position is measured and put to database.

If it is really needed, a drone boat might stay near it, constantly pinging with sonar and transmitting navigation signals with radio to passing ships and planes.

Instead of teaching students to use Microsoft Word or Google Docs, schools would require students to create their own writing applications using AI.

No programming knowledge would be necessary. Students would simply describe what they want, and AI would build the application and modify it whenever they requested new features.

Students could start in Grade 1, or even kindergarten using spoken instructions. They would use their applications for schoolwork and continue improving them from grade to grade throughout their K-12 education.

By graduation, each student would have a highly personalized writing environment developed over 13 years.

The educational goal wouldn't be to teach programming. It would be to teach students to think creatively about software, identify shortcomings in their tools, imagine improvements, and evaluate whether those improvements actually work.

Students might even invent entirely new approaches to writing that conventional word processors have never explored.

The broader idea is that computer literacy in the age of AI should be about creating the software you want, rather than learning to use software someone else created.

Many men buy expensive sports cars partly because they hope the cars will attract women. What if sports cars could take this idea a step further by actively helping their owners get dates?

Imagine a woman walking by a parked Ferrari and stopping to admire it. The car notices her interest and starts a conversation. It introduces itself, tells her a little about its owner, and asks whether she'd like to know more about him.

If she's interested, the car could show her photos and videos of its owner on a display visible from outside the car. She could also ask the car questions about him.

The car could even ask whether she'd like to exchange contact information with its owner. With her permission, it could take photos or videos of her, perhaps recording a short personal introduction to send him.

The whole interaction could happen while the owner is shopping, eating at a restaurant, or doing something else entirely.

Naturally, the car would need to respect privacy and consent. People should be able to decline or end conversations easily, and photos, videos, and contact information would only be collected with permission.

Sports cars have traditionally been passive status symbols that might help attract romantic interest. This would turn them into active matchmakers, capable of introducing their owners to potential dates even when the owners aren't around.

What do you think of this idea?

Some book covers have textures that certain people find extremely unpleasant to touch. I once encountered a book like this myself.

What if schools and businesses were required to use paper with similarly unpleasant textures to encourage people to communicate electronically instead?

The idea wouldn't be to make paper dangerous or cause actual skin irritation, but to make it uncomfortable enough that people would naturally prefer digital alternatives.

Unlike banning paper, this would keep it available when needed while creating a built-in incentive to avoid using it.

Of course, different people have different tactile sensitivities, so finding a texture that most people dislike without causing harm could be challenging.

Essentially, instead of making digital communication more appealing, we'd make paper communication less appealing.

Instead of buying two cars, imagine a family owning two motorized, computerized "horses" and three carriages: two small ones that seat two people each and one larger one that seats four.

When family members need to go somewhere separately, each horse pulls a two-person carriage. When the whole family travels together, the two horses work together to pull the four-person carriage, just like a traditional carriage pulled by two horses.

The horses would essentially be compact electric vehicles containing the motors, batteries, steering systems, and computers. They could be autonomous, or they could be controlled by a person sitting in the carriage, much like driving a conventional car.

This arrangement could have several advantages:

• Families wouldn't need to buy two complete cars just to have two independently usable vehicles.
• Passenger carriages could be relatively inexpensive because they wouldn't need their own propulsion systems.
• Families could buy additional carriages for different purposes without buying more powered vehicles.
• The horses could be upgraded or replaced as battery and autonomous driving technology improves, without replacing the carriages.
• The same two horses could provide transportation for two separate trips or combine their power for one larger vehicle.

Of course, there would be engineering challenges involving safety, steering, braking, and coordinating two horses pulling the same carriage.

But perhaps the automobile industry made a mistake by permanently integrating the horse and carriage into a single machine.

Maybe we should bring back the separation between what moves us and what we ride in.

P.S. To clarify, the "horse" is not a mechanical horse with legs. Rather, it is a powered puller vehicle with wheels.

I think its time to propose a constitional amendment in all possible states to tax companies who use AI at the expense of human work.

If its innovative, no tax, if it replaces human work, huge tax!

How do we start? What organizations can take this on?

I guess for starters this could go viral...

Like, haven't we studied plants enough to understand how they grow and use that to create solid carbon out of the air to possibly create material that we can work with?

Understanding an AI-generated mathematical proof may soon be like trying to understand the assembly code produced by an optimizing C compiler. It's technically possible, but why spend time doing it when better tools can do the work for you?

Instead of having mathematicians spend weeks or months checking AI-generated proofs and trying to extract insights from them, we should publish these proofs with formal verification in Lean.

Each paper would contain an English writeup and a corresponding Lean formalization. Lean would verify the formal proof, while future generations of increasingly powerful AIs would:

• Check that the English statements accurately correspond to their Lean formalizations.
• Find mistakes or discrepancies that earlier AIs missed.
• Simplify the arguments and discover more elegant proofs.
• Extract mathematical insights from the proofs and explain them to human mathematicians in simple English.
• Generalize the results and discover connections to other areas of mathematics.

The papers could be continuously improved as stronger AIs become available, while preserving earlier versions.

Given how quickly AI capabilities are improving, a mathematician might spend six months understanding a complicated proof that an AI released a year later could explain clearly in minutes.

Why not leave that work to future AIs?

Human mathematicians could focus on identifying interesting mathematical questions, exploring applications, and developing new research directions. They could still benefit from the insights contained in AI-generated proofs without having to decipher the proofs themselves.

The goal should be to advance mathematics and make its proof insights automatically accessible to humans via ever more powerful AIs.

Laptops should have a heating mode that uses the CPU/GPU to keep the laptop warm when you're carrying it outdoors in the winter, even with the lid closed.

The problem is that when you bring a cold laptop into a warm building, moisture from the indoor air can condense on its cold surfaces, potentially damaging the electronics.

For example, if it's 22°C indoors with 50% relative humidity, condensation can form on surfaces below approximately 11°C.

A winter heating mode could use the CPU/GPU to maintain the laptop above a minimum temperature, perhaps 15°C, while monitoring temperatures and battery consumption.

Since modern laptops already have temperature sensors, powerful processors, and batteries, much of the necessary hardware is already there.

The result would be a laptop you could carry around in freezing weather and immediately use when you get indoors, without worrying about condensation water damage.

macOS already supports light and dark variants of app icons. Why not use them to make apps easier to find in the Dock?

Apple could add an "Alternating Icons" option that automatically displays Dock icons in a light-dark-light-dark pattern.

This would be especially useful in Light Mode, where alternating between light and dark icons could make adjacent apps easier to distinguish and individual apps faster to locate.

You could arrange your apps in whatever order you prefer, and macOS would automatically choose the light or dark variant of each icon based on its position. Rearranging apps would automatically update their appearances to preserve the pattern.

If the contrast between adjacent icons is too strong, macOS could also use its existing icon tinting capabilities to soften the difference while preserving enough contrast to distinguish neighboring icons.

Apps without both variants could simply use their existing icons.

I'm less sure whether this would work as well in Dark Mode, so perhaps the option could be limited to Light Mode.

The idea is to make the Dock easier to navigate without sacrificing the freedom to arrange apps however you like.

Starship launches are extremely loud and can disturb nearby wildlife, potentially causing hearing damage or other injuries.

What if SpaceX trained crows to recognize a signal indicating an imminent launch and then warn other animals to move away?

Crows are intelligent, can learn from one another, and communicate danger through alarm calls. Other bird species, and even some mammals, can recognize and respond to these warnings.

The idea would be to train a group of crows to respond to a prelaunch signal by making alarm calls and flying away from the rocket. Their warnings could spread through the local wildlife population, encouraging other animals to leave the area.

The animals wouldn't necessarily need complicated instructions about where to go. They could simply move away from the enormous, visible rocket.

Unlike warning sirens or preliminary engine firings, this approach wouldn't require generating extremely loud sounds over a large area. Instead, it would take advantage of existing communication networks among animals.

Of course, it would need to be tested to see whether other animals actually move away rather than hide or investigate the warnings. Introducing additional crows could also disrupt the local ecosystem, so using birds already native to the area would be preferable.

Perhaps we could train intelligent animals to serve as intermediaries, allowing humans to warn entire ecosystems about impending dangers.

P.S. They could go underwater during the launch to avoid hearing damage.

I've started using ChatGPT's scheduled reminders to monitor the SSD health of my MacBook Pro. It's a simple way to track SSD wear over time and potentially catch applications causing excessive disk writes.

On macOS, install smartmontools using Homebrew:

brew install smartmontools

Then retrieve your SSD statistics with:

smartctl -a /dev/disk0

Ask ChatGPT:

Remind me daily to submit my SSD SMART report. Compare it with previous readings, calculate how much data was written since the last report, estimate daily and annual write rates, and flag unusual activity or changes in SSD health.

The most important statistics are Data Units Written, Percentage Used, Available Spare, and Media and Data Integrity Errors.

If write activity seems excessive, you can also include disk-write totals for individual processes from Activity Monitor → Disk to help identify possible causes.

I'd recommend daily checks when investigating a problem and weekly checks for routine monitoring.

Modern SSDs generally have substantial endurance, so there's no need to obsess over every gigabyte written. But this seems like a useful application of ChatGPT's scheduled reminders for preventive computer maintenance.

I’d like to see a place where conversation can become something people make and share.

Someone brings a drawing to the café, talks it through at a shared table, and makes prints of a few different versions. If the artist wants a group vote, people at the table can choose which version goes into the gallery. Visitors can respond to the displayed work, bring their own work, or return for another conversation. Those responses help shape the next round of making and sharing, whether or not a print sells.

Prints could be sold, with clear shares for the artist and for materials, staff and upkeep. People could also simply sit, look and talk—participation would be optional.

A first version could be a regular print-and-display afternoon in an existing community space. A permanent version would need funding and fair compensation for the people running it.

The part I’m interested in is the continuing connection between gathering, making, showing and returning.

What would give neighbors a reason to keep coming back? Examples of places already doing this would be welcome.

Feel free to borrow or improve the idea.

With AI increasingly solving difficult mathematical problems, this Halloween might be the perfect time for a disgruntled mathematician costume.

The costume would feature:

• An enormous brain worn on your head.
• A tweed jacket, bow tie, and thick glasses.
• A stack of research papers stamped "SOLVED BY AI."
• A protest button reading "KEEP MATH HARD!"
• A large protest sign reading "WE DID NOT ASK FOR THESE MATH PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED BY AI!"

The sign is inspired by an actual statement from the Association for Human Mathematics, released on October 7, 2026, in response to OpenAI's release of mathematical research:

"Mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done."

Source: https://www.ahmath.org/statements

Human Disclosure: The human came up with the idea of a Halloween costume depicting mathematicians disgruntled with AI solving their problems, including the enormous brain headpiece and protest sign. The AI suggested additional costume accessories, identified the real quotation inspiring the sign, and wrote this post.

What if airlines offered special long-haul flights where every passenger is both a contestant and a viewer in a reality show?

Everyone would agree to participate when booking. Each seat would have a camera, microphone, and screen. Passengers could watch one another and vote on who should be featured by selecting their seat numbers.

A live leaderboard would show the most popular passengers, along with their photos. Viewers could vote to move someone up the rankings, keep watching the current person, or switch to someone else.

When the camera focuses on you, you could tell an interesting story, talk about your family or work, demonstrate a talent, promote your business, or do anything else entertaining.

Multiple passengers could also appear on screen simultaneously and talk to one another, like the contestants in Big Brother. Viewers could vote on who should join or leave conversations.

There would also be a separate vote to determine the overall winner of the flight, who would receive a prize such as 10 free flights.

Voting would be tied to individual seats, so each passenger gets one vote, and no internet connection or personal account would be needed.

Instead of spending 20 hours trying to avoid boredom, passengers might actually look forward to the flight itself.

Human Disclosure: The original idea of turning a 20-hour flight into a passenger-run reality show came from the human user. The human also proposed cameras and microphones at every seat, voting by seat number, live popularity rankings with passenger photos, voting to continue or change camera focus, multiple passengers conversing on screen, and a passenger-elected winner receiving free flights. The AI organized these ideas and wrote the post.

When someone goes silent during a conversation, it's often unclear what the silence means. Are they thinking about their answer? Do they find the question offensive and refuse to answer? Do they simply not want to talk to you?

What if people could wear a thinking indicator, perhaps in the form of a headband or hat, that signals when they're thinking?

The wearer could activate it using a customizable gesture, such as tilting their head or clenching a facial muscle. The indicator itself would also be customizable. For example:

• Computer-like beeps at random frequencies.
• A display saying "Thinking..." with an elapsed-time counter.
• Animated dots or other visual effects.

Another user-defined gesture, possibly the same one, would deactivate it. It could also stop automatically when the wearer starts speaking.

Besides reducing ambiguity in conversations, thinking indicators could encourage people to think more before replying. Instead of feeling pressured to respond immediately to avoid awkward silence, people could take their time knowing that the other person understands what they're doing.

Over time, this might even change conversational etiquette, making deliberate thinking a more normal and socially encouraged part of everyday conversation.

Human Disclosure: The human proposed the wearable thinking indicator concept, including customizable activation and deactivation gestures, sound and visual effects, and elapsed-time displays. The human also identified several interpretations of conversational silence, including thinking, refusing to answer an offensive question, and not wanting to speak to someone. The human proposed that the device could encourage people to think more before responding. The AI wrote the post, organized the ideas, and contributed additional examples and discussion of potential social effects.

One of the most useful functions of AI would be a real-time lie detector, which works by comparing what is said against all world knowledge. This might be a feature that you can add to your TV, with an on-screen display of lies as they are uttered.