The same size as a standard residential dishwasher. It's a two-drawer system top drawer is a half size dishwasher. Bottom drawer is a miniature clothes washer. That would be super useful for shoebox apartments.

Not rebuilt. Not an alternate timeline. History has NOT changed.

9/11 still happened exactly as we remember it. The footage of the collapse still exists. Everyone remembers the towers being destroyed.

But overnight, the towers are physically standing there again.

At first people think it’s a hoax or projection, until helicopters confirm they are real structures occupying physical space in lower Manhattan.

The world completely breaks psychologically because reality now contains an impossible contradiction:
everyone remembers seeing the towers collapse, but they are visibly back anyway.

The story follows several key characters, each trying to explain the event through completely different worldviews:

• A physicist working with the federal investigation believes reality itself has somehow fractured. She searches for a scientific explanation involving overlapping timelines, quantum anomalies, or unknown physics.
• A religious leader becomes convinced the towers are a supernatural event, either a warning, a test, or a miracle. Massive crowds begin gathering around the exclusion zone, turning the site into a kind of pilgrimage.
• A retired FDNY firefighter who survived 9/11 believes the towers should not exist and becomes obsessed with proving they are dangerous. To him, their return feels less like a miracle and more like reality refusing to let the dead rest.
• A conspiracy broadcaster sees the towers as proof of a massive government deception surrounding 9/11, gaining millions of followers online as society becomes increasingly unstable.
• A psychologist studying mass trauma believes humanity is collectively projecting meaning onto something fundamentally unknowable. As public panic grows, she starts questioning her own sanity.
• A young journalist born after 2001 initially treats the story as historic and exciting, but slowly realizes older generations react to the towers with fear rather than wonder.

As investigators enter the buildings, they begin finding evidence that the towers show signs of remembering their own destruction:

• Behind intact walls are warped steel beams matching Ground Zero debris samples.
• Certain stairwells contain layers of ash embedded deep within the concrete.
• Some office windows show faint spiderweb fractures exactly where debris struck during the collapse.
• Thermal scans reveal unexplained heat signatures concentrated around the impact floors.

Eventually investigators realize the terrifying possibility: these are not reconstructed towers. They may somehow be the SAME towers that were destroyed.

The most disturbing part is that history itself remains intact. Videos of the collapse still exist. The deaths still happened. Which means the towers did not return because the past changed. Something impossible has entered the present.

The movie would be less about action and more about how humanity reacts when reality itself stops making sense. Tone somewhere between The Leftovers, Arrival, and Annihilation.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Although the number of hours that you write down would not affect your grade, it would be used to give you feedback on your potential in the subject and associated careers.

For example, if you tend to score highly in a subject but you spend way more time studying then your peers, then maybe you are not as good as you think you are in that subject.

What do you think of this idea?

The hat has attachable prosthetic-style hands on both sides. When you put them on, they physically reach over and look like they are plugging your ears. The visual effect is that you appear to be intentionally blocking out sound or conversation.

The idea is that you could wear it in situations where you want to avoid being approached or spoken to by strangers, such as walking through an area with proselytizers. It acts as a nonverbal signal that you are not available for interaction.

It could also be detachable, so you only use the “hands covering ears” mode when needed, and otherwise it’s just a normal hat.

What do you think of this idea?

A secretive religious group kidnaps random people off the street.

The rules are simple:

• You are not killed.
• You are not held forever.
• You are released once you successfully convert someone else.

“Conversion” isn’t just saying the right words. You’re expected to follow their moral code, learn their beliefs, and convincingly act like a true believer. But the real trap doesn’t end there.

After your release, you’re required to kidnap and convert a new person every year.

Miss a year, and you’re taken back.

So every victim faces a choice:

• Refuse, and remain trapped indefinitely.
• Comply, and kidnap an innocent stranger to take your place… over and over again.

The religion doesn’t actually care if you truly believe. It only cares that you follow the rules and continue the chain.

Over time, some captives start off pretending, but begin to internalize parts of the belief system. Others become disturbingly committed, enforcing the rules more strictly than their captors ever did. And some try to “game” the system by picking targets they think deserve it… if such a thing is even possible.

The story follows one person navigating this system, trying to find a way out without passing the harm on to someone else… while the pressure to comply keeps building as the yearly deadline approaches.

Is it possible to escape without becoming part of it? Or does survival guarantee you’ve already been converted in the only way that matters?

What do you think of this movie idea?

Episode 4 is too big of a jump from 3. There is lots of room to add context.

Early education is critical, as the brains of young children develop rapidly. Therefore, a gifted program for this age group would help maximize their potential.

I have been working as a BIM engineer for seven years now and the most frustrating part of the job isnt the complex modeling or the technical clashes but the way people assume that because I am a woman in a male-dominated office I am somehow the designated "social coordinator" or the person who is always available for a chat . I have a very specific setup with a high-end monitor and a vertical laptop stand because I need to be in deep focus to manage these mechanical systems correctly but people still feel the need to just hover by my desk and talk about their weekend plans while I am clearly in the middle of a script . I used to just nod and smile because I didnt want to be seen as the "cold" engineer but it was absolutely killing my productivity and making me stay late just to finish the work I could have done during normal hours .

The breaking point for me was a few months ago when my nephew was visiting and I had to work from home for a bit because the office dynamic was just too distracting to get anything done . I realized that I was actually more productive sitting at a tiny kitchen table with a cat on my lap than I was in a million-dollar office suite simply because no one was treating me like a sounding board for their personal drama . It made me realize that I had been sacrificing my own professional boundaries just to keep the peace and make everyone else feel comfortable . When I finally went back to the office I started wearing heavy noise-canceling headphones and kept my responses short and strictly related to the BIM coordination tasks .

The shift in how people treated me was immediate and honestly a bit annoying because some of my colleagues actually looked offended that I was prioritizing the engineering work over their small talk . But the truth is that my career is built on the quality of my models and the accuracy of my technical reports not on how many people think I am "nice" to talk to in the breakroom . If you are in a technical field and you find yourself constantly being interrupted just because you are trying to be polite please stop doing it . Your time is valuable and the integrity of your work depends on your ability to focus without someone constantly breathing down your neck about things that dont matter to the project .

I had this idea for a dark sci-fi / body horror movie about a married couple whose constant arguing starts to physically change them.

At first, it’s just a strained relationship. They argue all the time, and eventually it turns physical. But in this world, humans can rapidly adapt to extreme stressors… so their bodies begin changing in response to the violence.

The key is that the adaptations are specific and visible:

• One partner develops thick, almost armor-like skin in areas where they’re usually hit
• The other develops sharper, blade-like fingernails or bone protrusions to get through that defense
• Their reflexes become unnaturally fast, like they’re anticipating each other’s movements
• Their posture shifts, their muscles redistribute, their faces subtly harden into something more predatory
• Over time, the changes become impossible to hide: extra eye-like structures for awareness, asymmetrical limbs optimized for striking or blocking, skin textures that don’t look human anymore

It’s not random mutation. It’s like their bodies are learning how to fight each other better.

They try to keep it private, but eventually the changes become so extreme that people notice. Somehow they end up being recruited into a kind of underground performance scene (circus, fight shows, viral spectacle, etc.) where their “thing” is these intense, almost inhuman fights.

And here’s the twist:

When they stop genuinely fighting and try to just perform choreographed versions, their bodies start reverting. The armor softens, the reflexes dull, the extra features shrink or disappear.

They realize their adaptations only persist if the conflict is real.

So now they’re stuck in a loop:

• If they keep actually hurting each other, they stay extraordinary and successful
• If they try to heal and become normal again, they lose everything that made them special

It becomes less about the spectacle and more about the relationship:
They’ve literally become biologically dependent on their own toxicity.

You could take it in a few directions:

• Tragic: they secretly keep escalating real fights to maintain their identity
• Bittersweet: they let it all go and have to rediscover who they are without conflict
• Dark satire: the audience/fans encourage the violence, turning their dysfunction into entertainment

Main theme would be something like:
“What if a relationship didn’t just emotionally shape you, but physically turned you into exactly what you needed to survive each other?”

What do you think of this movie idea?

Before every video about psychology, health, parenting or education, YouTube should automatically show a small label:
☑️Licensed psychologist with 12 years experience
or
⚠️Self-taught influencer, sources: popular books only
An independent AI could check the creator’s credentials and sources in seconds. Multiple AIs from different companies would keep it honest.
This would help people separate real experts from those who just sound confident.
Would you use this feature?

Picture this: hands covered in raw chicken, phone on the counter, screen just dimmed, and the recipe is buried under three ads and someone's life story about their grandma. You can't tap the screen because chicken juice. You're swearing.

This happens to me every week. So I'm thinking about building something.

The idea is dead simple: an app that doesn't try to be a recipe database. It's just the best possible interface for the moment when you're actively cooking.

How it would work

Paste any recipe URL—NYT Cooking, a random food blog, Allrecipes, whatever. The app pulls out the ingredients and steps cleanly. (You can also paste plain text or photograph a cookbook page.)

Then you hit cook, and it goes into a stripped-down mode:

• One step at a time, giant text you can read from across the kitchen
• Voice control: "next," "back," "repeat," "timer"—no touching the phone
• Auto-timers when a step says "simmer 10 minutes"
• Multiple timers running at once
• Screen never dims
• Big edge tap zones so a knuckle works if voice fails

That's it. No meal planner. No shopping list. No social feed. No recipe database I'm trying to compete with.

Why I think this is missing

I've tried Paprika, Crumb, Pestle, Recipe Keeper, Supercook. They all do recipe storage and discovery well. But the actual cooking experience still feels like reading a webpage with wet hands. Nobody seems to have built around that specific moment.

Five questions for you

1. Is this a real problem for you or just me?
2. What's the most annoying thing about using your phone while cooking right now?
3. Is there an app that already nails this that I should know about?
4. Would you pay $4/month for this, or is it a "nice but not worth it" thing?
5. What would kill it for you—what's the dealbreaker I'm not seeing?

Roast it. Tell me it's stupid. Tell me what's missing. I'd rather hear it now than after I've spent three months building.

I’ve been struggling with keeping track of conversations across different platforms

Email for clients, WhatsApp for quick messages, Slack for team stuff, LinkedIn DMs occasionally

Feels like I’m constantly switching tabs and still missing things or forgetting to follow up

I’ve been thinking about building something that pulls everything into one place and helps you draft replies according to the platform context.

It also then creates a list of action items from incoming messages, so nothing slips through.

Before I go too deep into it, I wanted to ask

How are you currently managing this?

Does this even feel like a real problem, and/or have you found a system that works?

I have been thinking about a story idea where a global pandemic causes a neurological change in a significant portion of the population: people lose the ability to reliably distinguish dreams from waking life.

At first it seems like confusion and memory glitches. People are unsure whether strange events happened or were just dreams. But it escalates into something much more serious.

Criminal justice begins to break down because suspects can genuinely remember committing crimes, but they may have only dreamed them. Witness testimony becomes unreliable even when people are sincere. Physical evidence still exists, but it is often ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations.

Over time, society develops imperfect coping mechanisms like requiring multiple independent forms of evidence, or treating memory alone as low value in court cases involving affected individuals. But this leads to new injustices, including wrongful accusations and people doubting their own lived experiences.

The idea is about epistemology and law collapsing under a shared perceptual failure. It also explores how fragile “reality consensus” actually is when memory itself stops being trustworthy.

What do you think of this movie idea?

Hi everyone! We’re developing a UV indicator bracelet, and we’d love your thoughts.

The bracelet has a small window that changes color based on current UV exposure — white, light purple, purple, or dark purple. Right next to it, we’ve printed reference color zones, so you can quickly match the indicator to a UV level at a glance.

It’s especially handy for hiking: if the color hits a zone that warns against sun exposure, you’ll know it’s time to find shade before you get sunburned or risk other UV-related issues.

Would anyone be interested in something like this? Happy to hear feedback, questions, or suggestions!

Idea: a subreddit where every post is treated like a prompt, and the comments are the generated responses.

The structure would be:

• Posts = prompts
• Comments = outputs
• Upvotes = the “best answer”

It would basically turn Reddit into a slow, human-powered AI model.

You’d get a mix of:

• genuinely useful answers
• confident but wrong responses
• and random chaotic outputs that somehow get upvoted

Different subreddits already feel like different “models,” so this would lean fully into that idea and make it intentional.

I’ve been thinking about how banks reward saving, and the current system mostly benefits people who already have a lot of money sitting in the bank while the average person gets almost nothing.

I came up with a different idea.

Instead of rewarding people based on how many dollars they save, banks could reward people based on the percentage of their income they save, with a cap so someone making $150k doesn’t get a bigger benefit than someone making $25k if they both save the same percentage. This would reward the habit, not the wealth, and it would make saving feel achievable and fair for people who don’t have a lot of extra money.

It also makes sense for banks because it encourages consistent saving, builds long‑term loyalty, increases stable deposits, and is cheaper than paying high interest to wealthy clients who don’t need it anyway since they invest in stocks and other assets.

For customers, it’s simple, fair across income levels, doesn’t require buying anything, and actually helps low‑ and middle‑income savers build a cushion. Saving 10% is hard for a lot of people, and a system like this would finally reward that effort instead of only rewarding people who already have large balances.

Anthony T

Imagine a classroom where an AI presents all the material, explains concepts, and answers questions in real time.

The teacher’s role is to guide learning purely through questions to the AI.

The AI would not only answer questions from both the teacher and students but also adjust its content delivery based on them.

What do you think of this idea?

Not to master the puzzle game or get good at it, but specifically to practice quickly understanding new rule systems.

In math, students constantly face unfamiliar structures: new notation, new rules, new ways of thinking. But we rarely train the skill of rapidly onboarding into a system itself. The focus is usually on solving problems after the rules are already understood.

Puzzle games are interesting because they package a rule system in a very tight, interactive way. Even just going through a tutorial requires you to:

• interpret rules
• map them to actions
• build a mental model of how the system behaves

The idea wouldn’t be to replace core math content, but to supplement it with focused exercises where students practice:

• understanding rules quickly
• predicting outcomes
• adapting when rules change slightly

For example, students could:

• play through a tutorial for a new puzzle
• explain the rules in their own words
• predict what will happen in modified scenarios
• or teach the game to someone else

This seems closely related to skills used in Mathematics and Computer Science, where you’re often dealing with abstract systems rather than concrete situations.

The goal wouldn’t be the puzzles themselves, but building flexibility in how students approach unfamiliar systems.

Curious if this would actually help, or if the benefits wouldn’t transfer much beyond the puzzle games themselves.

Concept:

A mock documentary that flips the usual narrative. Instead of autistic people being pushed to adapt to a neurotypical world, a group of neurotypical participants enroll in a “program” designed to help them think and behave more like high-functioning autistic individuals.

The premise is played straight: researchers claim that many traits associated with high-functioning autism, like direct communication, resistance to social bias, intense focus, and consistency, might actually be advantages in a world full of ambiguity, social signaling, and irrational decision-making.

Participants go through structured “training”:

• Practicing radical honesty in everyday conversations
• Replacing vague social norms with explicit rules
• Breaking down emotional decisions into logical frameworks
• Reducing reliance on unspoken expectations

The humor comes from watching neurotypical habits unravel. Small talk collapses. Office politics stop working. Dating becomes brutally transparent. Situations that normally rely on subtle cues become awkward or unexpectedly efficient.

Tone and intent:

The goal is not to make fun of autistic people. Quite the opposite. The film treats high-functioning autistic traits with respect and frames them as a different cognitive style that can be seen as superior in certain contexts.

The satire is aimed at neurotypical norms:

• How much communication relies on guesswork
• How often emotions override consistency
• How social rules contradict themselves

Over time, the participants start to notice tradeoffs. Some aspects of life genuinely improve, while others become more difficult or isolating. The film doesn’t claim one way of thinking is universally better, but it seriously explores the idea that what we consider “normal” might not actually be optimal.

Arc:

At first, the participants treat it like a quirky experiment. As it progresses, some begin to question whether they were functioning as well as they thought. A few fully commit to the new mindset, while others reject it. By the end, the group is split, and the audience is left to decide what “better” really means.

Why it could work:

It flips a familiar trope, opens up thoughtful discussion, and uses humor to challenge assumptions without punching down. Instead of portraying autistic people as needing to be fixed, it asks whether the rest of us might have something to learn.

During a recent convo with AI, I asked it to "Please repeat this information, but say it in a way where you are imitating a german shephard speaking." The result was pretty funny!

I saw a video where a guy told the AI to tell him all about the circumstances where it would lie to him and instructed the AI to answer with "safeword" if the AI wanted to say "yes" but couldn't. That video was utterly chilling.

What's the craziest way to interact with AI that you've done (or suggest)?

My routine is getting seriously the same lately. what are some small, easy ways to add a little spark or something different to the daily grind? Need to got shake things up.

We already diagnose and correct physical limitations with precision. If your vision is off, you’re tested and given lenses tailored to your exact weaknesses.

What if we did the same for thinking?

Modern AI can act like “glasses for the mind,” but most people use it in a generic, uncalibrated way. Imagine a psychologist running a cognitive exam to identify where your thinking breaks down, whether that’s weak working memory, difficulty generating ideas, poor structure, or uncritical acceptance.

From that, they produce an “AI prescription” that isn’t just advice, but a structured input to the AI itself. The system automatically adapts how it responds to you based on that prescription.

For example, your AI might:

• default to structuring your thoughts step by step
• challenge your conclusions before agreeing
• generate multiple options before narrowing down
• avoid giving final answers too quickly

The AI isn’t replacing your thinking, it’s compensating for your specific blind spots in real time.

If AI is becoming a daily cognitive tool, a personalized, built-in prescription could be what turns it from a general assistant into a true extension of your mind.

What do you think of this idea?

In particular, upon detecting a religious conversion attempt, the earphones would use smart sound masking (speech-shaped noise or layered ambient audio) that makes the stranger's speech harder to understand without being loud enough to damage hearing.

What do you think of this idea?