WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Month: December, 2018

The “self-control facilitation grate” is a new home oven invention that saves the roof of your mouth from being melted by molten pizza cheese. Ask for—no, DEMAND—this option in your next high-end kitchen appliance purchase.

Background:

When baking a pizza in an oven, it’s it’s easy to remove the pizza from the oven and instantly start devouring it.

The issue:

Unfortunately, molten cheese (Fig. 1) cannot coexist with human tissue, so this causes severe burns to the impatient pizza-eater.

1-melting-hot

Figure 1: It’s easy to remove a still-too-hot pizza from an oven and be punished for your impatience.

Proposal:

We can prevent further occurrences of this culinary tragedy by adding a secondary grating to the oven.

This secondary “pizza self-control facilitation grating” is a thin set of metal wires that extend across the opening to the oven (Figure 2).

After a pizza is done, the grating stays closed for a few additional minutes, while the pizza cools. Once the pizza has reached an acceptable temperature, the grating retracts and the user may obtain their pizza.

(Activating this grating would be done by selecting “pizza” mode when first setting the temperature. This would be similar to how a “popcorn” button on a microwave is used).

 

2-with-the-self-control-enhancement-grating.png

Figure 2: This shows the “pizza grating” in action. The grating (shown here in blue) does not retract until several minutes after the pizza is done. If this method is insufficient to allow the pizza to cool (it is, after all, still in a very hot oven), the grating could be adapted to a “pizza cage” cube shape that would be attached to the baking rack.

Thermodynamic issue:

The pizza may become overcooked, since it must remain in the (hot) oven, yet it is also expected to cool off.

This may be solvable by either opening the oven slightly before the pizza is done, or by allowing the grating to be a complete cube shape (a “pizza cage”) that can slide out along with the baking racks, thus removing the pizza from the source of heat while still preventing the impatient pizza-eater from immediately accessing it.

PROS: Solves the health hazard of pizza-related first-degree burns. Possibly reduces your insurance premiums.

CONS: May be mechanically complex, due to the conflicting goals of 1) cooling off the pizza and 2) keeping the pizza in close proximity to (or inside of) a 400º oven.

When giving a slide presentation, show DIFFERENT slide decks to different groups in the audience! Never confuse your audience with an overly-technical presentation again. An amazing application of the same technology used in red-green-glasses-based 3D movies.

Background:

When giving a presentation to a diverse audience (e.g. of experts and non-experts, or of employees from two different departments in a company), you have a problem: you can only make one set of slides, but sometimes you might want to tailor different parts of the presentation to a different audience.

For example, one might want to give a presentation at an easily-understood overview level while also providing technical details for any domain experts in attendance.

Proposal:

Nearly all projectors and screens consist of three light-generating elements, in red (1), green (2), and blue (3).

By giving some members of the audience a pair of green-lens glasses (which block all red and blue light), we would be able to hide certain elements of the presentation that were not relevant to the green-glasses wearers. We can use a set of red-lens glasses and blue-lens glasses in the same way (see Figure 1).

With this technique, we can show up to three entirely different slide presentations, with the only limitation being that each presentation must consist of only monochromatic images.

Specifics:

  • Red glasses can see the following colors:  red, yellow, magenta, white [*].
  • Green glasses can see the following colors: green, yellow, cyan, white.
  • Blue glasses can see the following four colors: blue, magenta, cyan, white.

[*] Note that this is “additive” color space (where red + green = yellow), not the “subtractive” color space one might be familiar with from mixing paints.

Fig_1 3d_glasses_modified

Fig. 1: These glasses block certain wavelengths of light. By carefully constructing our slide decks, we can use these glasses to give up to three different presentations to the same audience at the same time.

So a slide that should be visible to everyone in the audience should be white (or shades of gray). Whereas if you only wanted to present to the red & green glasses-wearers (but not the blue ones), that text would be yellow. See Figure 2 for an example.

Fig_2_financial_results_all

Fig. 2: A sample presentation that is meant to provide both “optimistic” conclusions (green glasses) and “realistic” conclusions (red glasses). This is what the presentation looks like with no color-filtering glasses on.

 

Fig_3_red_normal

Fig. 3: The presentation from Figure 2 in “pessimistic / realistic” mode, as viewed through red lenses. All of the green text has disappeared!

 

Fig_4_green_optimistic

Fig. 4: The presentation from Figure 2 in “optimistic” mode, viewed through green lenses. Red text has disappeared.

 

Fig_5_what_it_looks_like_simulation

Fig. 5: Real-world demonstration: a color-enhanced version of what a red-blue version of this presentation looks like through red-blue “3D” glasses. The effect is almost 100% convincing for the human eye, but the camera actually manages to pick up a lot of the non-lens color, so this photo has been edited to more accurately reflect the perceived image.

A superior (but more logistically difficult) implementation:

It would also be possible to implement this same system with polarized glasses (as were used for some 3D TVs in the early-to-mid 2010s).

This would have the advantage of providing full color, but the disadvantage of not being compatible with a standard conference room projector. Additionally, you would be limited to two different presentations, rather than 3.

PROS: Improves your presentations by letting you tailor the presentation slides to multiple categories of audience members.

CONS: Greatly increases the amount of time required to make a presentation!

Improve your web site’s comment section by only allowing unique comments! Now every meme image will need to be one pixel different in order to be reposted. The Internet is saved!

Background:

Moderating the comments section of any web site is a thankless and un-ending task. But what if there were some way to make it slightly easier?

Proposal:

Instead of just allowing any comments, we can require that comments be totally unique and never-before-seen.

Once a comment is made, or an image is posted, a “fingerprint” [1] of that data is saved, and that exact comment can never be posted again (UI implementation shown in Figure 1).

[1] For example, an MD5 sum.

This will automatically get rid of many types of classic low-signal posts (e.g. the historical but rarely-seen-noawadays “First post”) and reposted memes. (This may or may not be desirable, depending on the type of site being run, of course.)

 

internet-message-board-only-unique-comments

Fig. 1: If a user posts some text (or an image) that was seen before, they will get an error message similar to this one.

Observation about images:

Since images must be unique to be reposted, the easiest way to re-post a meme image would be to make a small change to it and re-save it (or make no change at all, but re-save it using a lossy compression method). For a lossy image format like JPEG, this would lead to an interesting situation in which memes became more and more corrupted-looking as they are modified and re-posted over and over. This would even allow the lineage of a meme to be traced by looking at its variously-compressed versions.

PROS: May discourage certain low-effort posts that you’d want to moderate away anyway, saving moderator time and improving web site quality.

CONS: If a 32-digit hexadecimal number is used as the output of the “fingerprinting” hash function, then only a maximum of 16**32 comments can ever be made to your web site. If your web site gets 1 million unique posts per year, then some time in the year 340,282,366,920,938,448,064,954,991,902,720 A.D., all of the hash values will be used up, and people will no longer be able to post on your web site. Also, your visitor counter will probably have overflowed by then!

Journalists, take note! Print journalism can still be saved, with this one exotic culinary suggestion! Change your newspaper or magazine to this format today!

Background:

Print news has unfortunately been dealt a mortal blow by a combination of the Internet and mobile phones.

But there’s still one way to take advantage of the physical nature of printed news—a way that cannot be replicated by news on a phone!

Proposal:

We can bring printed newspapers and promote a healthy lifestyle in news aficionados with this one simple trick:

  • Instead of printing newspapers on paper, we print the news on a flat, edible substance (as shown in Figure 1).
  • Then, as you read the news, you can also eat the “newspaper.”
  • This also saves time at work, since the newspaper could serve as both reading material and lunch.
edible-news-with-text-contrast-improved.png

Fig. 1: Your daily news could be delivered in a number of different edible forms. The ideal surface must be flat and able to somehow be printed on.

Material Selection:

Candidate materials:

  • Matzah (or any other gigantic cracker / biscuit)
  • Seaweed. Caveat: may be too dark to be easily written on.
  • Beef jerky
  • Fruit Roll-ups”—these have the advantage of also being rollable, as the name implies (like a newspaper).
  • Bubble Tape.” Due to the narrowness of Bubble Tape, it may only be suitable for “news ticker”-style updates or 1930s stock ticker info.

PROS: A potentially healthy and efficient way of becoming more news-savvy. Be the first one in your neighborhood to get into the new “edible newspaper” health food craze!

CONS: You would definitely get crumbs everywhere.

 

Crowdsourcing can replace every job, including museum curation! The new “exile a piece of art” admission ticket adds interactivity to the art appreciation process!

Background:

Art museums often display a wide variety of pieces.

Some art pieces may be considered to be pretentious or otherwise without merit.

Unfortunately, currently there is no way to express that displeasure in an actionable form.

Proposal:

Art museums should sell two categories of ticket: a regular-priced general admission ticket (Figure 1), and a special “curator” ticket (Figure 2).

This “curator” ticket would cost 10 times as much as a normal ticket, but would have a special feature: it would allow the admitted individual to select any one piece of artwork in the museum to be “exiled” back to the archives and removed from display.

(It would be replaced by a randomly-chosen other piece from the museum’s not-on-display archives.)

The exiled artwork would not be eligible to be displayed again until a certain amount of time had passed (or perhaps until all the other artworks in the museum had been rotated back on display).

This has two important properties:

  • It removes the need for curation, since every gallery will become a constantly-churning disaster zone of works being semi-randomly removed from display and returned from the museum archives.
  • It allows museum visitors to actively participate in the art-appreciation process, rather than only being passive observers.

 

 

1-regular-ticket.png

Fig. 1: This standard museum admission ticket is utterly uninspiring. Let’s improve things (see Figure 2).

 

2-exile-ticket-used.png

Fig. 2: The “curator” ticket has a tear-off ticket stub (shown at far right) that can be put in a pocket next to any artwork that the museum-goer wishes to remove from display. Once a day, museum employees will go through the museum and remove any artwork with an “exile” ticket associated with it. That “exiled” artwork will be replaced by a randomly-chosen piece of similar dimensions from the archives.

Conclusion:

This new “crowdsourced” approach to curation can be applied to museums of all types—not just art museums.

PROS: Adds interactivity to art museums and helps museums raise funds. Leverages the “wisdom of the crowds.”

CONS: Some jerk with extra money to spend might just go to the museum every day and exile their favorite art pieces to prevent others from enjoying them.