It is generally understood that a person who finishes the last amount of something (e.g. milk, soy sauce, driving a shared car until the tank is empty) is also responsible for refilling the substance.
This system is frequently gamed by the lazy, who will leave a tiny amount remaining so as to not have to refill the container (e.g. “But there’s still one more drop of milk in the carton!” or “There’s still some vapor in the car’s gas tank!”).
The underlying problem is that the expectation is that a person is free from obligation unless they consume the very last drop of something.
We can fix this by adding a sensor to each eventually-needs-refilling container.
Let’s use a refillable soy sauce bottle as a concrete example:
A soy-sauce-remaining detector (a floating ball) is added to the bottle (Figure 1).
Every time the soy sauce is poured, there is a chance that the bottle will light up and demand that the user refill it.
This chance isn’t uniform; when the bottle is 50% full or more, the chance is 0%. But as the bottle is emptied, the chance that a person will be called on to refill it increases.
Since it’s impossible to predict exactly when the bottle will need refilling, there’s no easy way to game the system.
Currently, this system just flashes a light on the item that needs refilling, but it could also snap a photograph of the offending user and—if the container is not refilled—upload it to a “you have violated the social contract” web site for public shaming.
PROS: Brings harmony to all shared-living situations.
CONS: Might be awkward if you use the last soy sauce during an earthquake and you can’t get any more for a while, so you’re stuck trying to survive while a beeping soy sauce bottle lid is threatening to publicly shame you. On the other hand, this is kind of the future we signed up for, right?
Thousands of hours of food-themed television shows exist. Not all of these are strictly utilitarian “how to cook” shows, either—many consist of a charismatic host going from country to country and describing the fine tastes of exotic foods.
This is a bit strange, isn’t it? Television is completely incapable of conveying taste, smell, and texture, which are the key elements of food enjoyment. And yet, here we are, with dozens of shows consisting of “wow, this steak tastes AMAZING!! If only you, the viewer, could enjoy it like I am enjoying it now!”
Evidently, the lack of taste-conveying technology is no obstacle to people’s enjoyment of “food experience” television: so why not expand to other counterintuitive genres?
Proposal #1: “Smell Review TV” (Figure 1): A panel of B-list actors partake in smelling of various substances. They then describe the smell and rate it on a five-star scale. Proposed pilot episode: “Animal Fur That Got Wet: Which One Smells The Most Horrendous?”
Proposal #2: “Tactile Time” (Figure 2): A famous British actor (who will work cheaply) travels goes to various countries and finds interestingly textured objects. He then describes and rates each sensation. Example: (while poking at at tortoise shell) “Hmmm, this tortoise shell: well, it’s rather…. rather like plastic in a way? A bit rough. No give to it, you know? Not as cold as I had expected, really not like a stone at all.”
Voters frequently are uninterested in the details of government: frequently, elections have low turnout even when critical issues are at stake.
Paradoxically, people can be more excited less important issues that are easier to understand (this is also referred to as “bikeshedding”).
Thus, this proposal aims to “trick” voters into being interested in an election by having a totally meaningless (yet superficially appealing) “ultra-easy” question on every ballot.
This sort of question would need to be incredibly easy to understand (Fig. 1) and require no civics knowledge.
These ballot proposals should ideally also make people extremely angry so they’ll fight each other online about it, thus increasing voter engagement. One might think of the “what color is the dress” question from 2015.
The non-cynical goal of this voting plan is to get voters interested in these easy-to-understand ballot measures as a “gateway” to investigating the more important issues.
PROS: May increase civic engagement!
CONS: Or it could just bring totally apathetic voters in to vote un-informedly on the actually-important issues on the ballot! Also, if you have to trick citizens into voting, maybe something more fundamental is wrong?
Residential homes are often protected from burglary by locked doors and locked windows (Figure 1), and occasionally by more substantial measures such as barred windows (Figure 2).
However, none of that helps once an intruder breaches the perimeter of the home: once they’re inside, they are free to loot at their leisure—an unoccupied home has no further internal defenses.
In order to make the inside of a home burglary-resistant without resorting to illegal booby traps, we can just create a security system that makes the interior of the home extremely unappealing to traverse.
One approach might be to have sliding metal dividers that can be raised out of the floor when all residents leave (Figure 3). This would make it nearly impossible to navigate the home while the system was armed, yet would not pose any threat to the residents in case of accidental deployment.
The metal-slat security system described in Figure 3 would be expensive to install, since it would require an elaborate floor mechanism. For home remodeling on a budget, see the simplified (but equally effective) proposal in Figure 4.
Next time you consult your architect for constructing a new mansion, make sure to keep these home-defense tips in mind.
PROS: Prevents thieves from stealing hundreds of dollars worth of televisions and cell phone chargers from your residence!
CONS: Might be over-complicated compared to the lower-tech version of just putting medieval portcullises between each room.
Extremely large TVs have now become cheap enough to use as gigantic computer monitors. It’s possible to find a 55+” television with high enough resolution and low enough latency to work as an external monitor for even the most discerning computer-ologist.
Most desks are not set up to accommodate a 55″ television as a monitor. In particular, the most immediately obvious arrangement—laptop in front of monitor—has the disadvantage of having a large area of the monitor blocked by the laptop (Figure 1).
In order to fix this laptop-blocking-screen issue, we turn to a simple software fix: simply split the monitor into three rectangular sub-monitors that are NOT blocked by the laptop screen (Figure 2).
Instead of splitting up a monitor into three rectangular sub-displays, it might also be possible to allow a user to “mask out” an arbitrary region of a monitor as a “dead zone” to be ignored by the system (Figure 4). This would allow the external display to still be treated as a single monitor, rather than 3 separate ones. Although a non-rectangular display may seem odd, there is precedent for it in smartphones: the Apple iPhone X “notch” and the “hole punch displays” introduced in 2019 are common examples.
Is it possible that a far-away television is better for eyestrain than a smaller-but-closer computer monitor? Maybe! Some sort of legitimate eyeball scientist should weigh in on this matter.
PROS: The multi-monitor setup would probably actually work, although irregularly-shaped displays might be a hassle.
Every four years, interest is re-kindled in the odd “Electoral College”-based method of tallying up American presidential votes.
Since the electoral votes are actually assigned on a per-state[*] basis (Figure 1), this has the side effect of making the presidential elections hinge on a few “battleground” districts—tiny subsets of swing states whose voting outcome isn’t already predictable.
Thus, only voters in these regions actually need to be granted presidential boons in order to persuade them—voters in the vast majority of states can be safely ignored.
[*] Some states split their electoral votes between candidates, but this is not common.
People frequently discuss the idea of changing the electoral college system to a one-vote-per-person system.
However, very little consideration has gone into the other direction—having a SECOND electoral college, essentially an “electoral college for the electoral college.”
If one electoral college is good, maybe two would be better?
Here, we propose that the United States be grouped—for the purposes of elections only—into 10 five-state “electoral mega-regions.” Washington D.C. will retain its 3 electoral votes, and will be counted as a secret “Megaregion Zero” (not shown on map).
(To increase the level of mystery, its votes will only be used in cases of ties, and will not be included in tallies otherwise.)
Then, each of these megaregions would cast its aggregated “mega-electoral-votes” just as the normal electoral votes are determined.
In order to fix the disenfranchisement problem described in Fig 2B, we could assign the votes of each megaregion based on a a simple majority of its states: instead of allowing Texas to entirely determine the outcome of Megaregion 6 (as it would if we weighted states by population or electoral votes), we would count each state as a single vote: so it would be a “best 3 out of 5” for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, and Alaska.
With this “one state / one vote” method, every state would be important in assigning the votes of the megaregion.
Thanks to this reformed system, politics will be saved forever. Also, this may showcase the electoral college system, leading other countries to adopt it.
PROS: Improves the electoral college system by adding a second layer, thus multiplying its benefits.
CONS: It’s somehow theoretically possible that this might lead to gerrymandering???
See below for an additional example of this system in action.
The traditional flat-surfaced desk has been more-or-less unchanged for thousands of years.
People often place a drink on their desk. However, this makes it very easy to accidentally knock the drink over onto (depending on the era) a stack of rolled-up papyrus scrolls, a Gutenberg Bible, or a laptop (Figure 1).
Desks should have a sunken “put your drinks here” area where they can safely spill without ruining your workspace (Figure 2).
This would be a great way for a furniture maker to drum up new business. Throw away your outdated “flat surface” desks and buy a new one!
When typing on a phone with an on-screen virtual keyboard, the auto-correct feature is essential.
Strangely, this auto-correct / auto-complete feature has never been monetized!
In order to bring great deals to consumers and new advertising opportunities to companies, we describe the following auto-correct enhancement.
Currently, auto-correct is boring and predicable. For example:
Typing “I’m going” may suggest the following completions: “to,” “on,” or “out.”
Typing: “I like” may suggest “that,” “the,” or “it.”
These are reasonable guesses, but what if we enhanced the autocorrect system to allow for sponsored suggestions (Figure 1).
“I’m going” could suggest:
“I’m going to”
“I’m going on”
“I’m going—but first, I’m going to drink a refreshing [BRAND NAME] soda, and then”
The particular [BRAND NAME] would be determined by whichever company was the highest bidder for the auto-correct ad.
It would also be possible to increase national pride and patriotism by changing the autocorrect to insert mandatory patriotic messages, such as:
“I like” ➡
“I like the”
“I like our glorious leader-for-life, who will lead our nation to victory over our cowardly foes”
“I like to”
“I support” ➡
“I support the”
“I support quartering troops in my house—it’s my patriotic duty as a citizen”
“I support it”
The best part about this system is that each ad implicitly carries the endorsement of the sender: it’s more persuasive to have a friend or trusted colleague text you with “I’ll be at the meeting, let me just finish this Ultra Crunch™ Cereal first” than to just see an impersonal ad demanding that you eat that specific cereal.
There is some prior work in this area: the Amazon Kindle “with special offers” shows ads on its screen while it’s sleeping, in return for being somewhat cheaper.
As an added bonus, each ad reaches TWO people (the sender and the recipient)!
PROS: Helps people afford more extravagant cell phones by subsidizing their purchases in return for ads infecting the auto-correct system.
Humans frequently wear metal adornments that have a small chance of being caught on something. Under most circumstances, this is fine, but occasionally this may lead to situations with a high probability of disaster (e.g. operating a lathe while wearing a dangly necklace).
Somehow, it is still the case that very little jewelry has a “break-away” safety feature that ensures that the object will disassemble itself before the attached body part is disassembled—generally, the situation that arises is the one shown in Figure 1.
This is surprising, since “break-away safety connector” has existed for decades, in:
Kitchen counter hot-water boilers, which often have a magnetically-attached power cord.
The Apple “MagSafe” laptop connector that (usually) disconnects if someone trips over the power cord.
The 2001 Microsoft Xbox wired controller’s break-away cable.
But for whatever reason, search terms like “break-away earring,” “magnetic safety earring,” and “Apple MagSafe connector earring” seem to indicate that break-away safety earrings are not a product under widespread commercial production!
The proposal is simple and low-cost: simply add a magnetic safety section to earrings, jewelry, ties, rings, and other adornments that might be caught on something.
As shown in Figure 2, this break-away safety section will detach if pulled with sufficient force, reducing the likelihood of disaster.
Although earrings are the most immediately obvious application of this type of safety connector, it would also be feasible for:
Rings (see The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for a situation in which this would have been useful)
Ties (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit for a situation where this would have been useful)
Capes (see The Incredibles for a situation where this would have been useful)
PROS: Saves the wearer from experiencing traumatic unscheduled disassembly.
CONS: Significantly increases the chance of losing the earring / ring in question. But this is a small price to pay!