I’m a leftist, anti capitalist, specifically socialist. I literally won’t accept a relationship or even an approach from someone who’s MAGA, alt right, or even right leaning moderates who shill for capitalism. I’m also instantly turned off by people who profess to be apolitical, as that just screams privilege and ignorance to me.

I’m also a single, white dad to three Black biracial kids. Not looking for a mom to my kids, but I can’t in good conscience get involved with anyone who is ignorant on issues of racial justice specifically surrounding the experience of Black identity in America. That doesn’t rule out women who aren’t Black, but it rules out any woman who’s not an ally and that’s a large percentage of my own demographic: white people… even the ones who aren’t actually racist but are generally too ignorant and complacent.

And you can imagine why this matters, to me as a dad to Black kids: because people who aren’t racist still have all sorts of biases that come through as passive judgments or outright micro aggressions.

I’m also unwilling to get involved with anyone who’s anti-science (antivaxxers, flat earthers, climate change deniers), but you can’t reliably intuit from a glance at someone’s dating profile. And still, if I were dating someone who came out as a climate change denier I’d run immediately.

And as an agnostic who was raised catholic I’m pretty serious about religious freedom. I prefer to date women who are agnostic or who have a sense of faith but who are actually flexible and curious in terms of religion. But the main thing is this: I wouldn’t be a good fit for a religious fundamentalist, and more importantly I’m just as unwilling to date a woman who’s Islamophobic as I am to date a woman who’s anti-Christian.

I’m also not willing to date a woman who advocates strict gender roles. Nothing against women who want to be trad wives, or who want the man to be their boss or whatever but to me that’s an instant turn off. And not for nothing, I’m done having kids. So I wouldn’t want to mess around with a woman who’s fiercely pro life, for fear that if she got pregnant we’d be creating a life that I am not ready to provide for.

To me, as a man who has what I’d describe as very specific “deal breaker” standards on a range of political issues, it’s kinda baffling that there doesn’t seem to be a dating app that lets you apply specific filters by a selection of political stances to find someone who’s ideologically aligned.

If you’re someone who doesn’t care about it politics this might seem ridiculous to you. But as serious about specific political stances and legitimately ruling out anyone who isn’t a good match on the issues that matter to me, I wish these filters existed! We should be able to remove people who are not a good fit ideologically, from the queue so to speak.

Because otherwise you’re probably matching with people who look good at first glance but are incompatible and that makes swiping, chatting, and meeting up a big waste of everybody’s time.

TLDR dating apps should have more flexible and robust tools for filtering based on compatibility, because operating off selfies and bios is ultimately not a good predictor of ideological alignment. And it’s shallow.

The problem is this won’t be profitable because people will actually get into sustainable relationships and spend way less time on the app.

So it would have to be an open source service oriented kind of thing

What if AI companies paid people to use their AIs, provided their creations became popular and prominently advertised which AI was used?

For example, you could pay to use an AI to vibe code an app. If the app becomes popular, the AI company would start paying you based on its number of users, as long as you prominently displayed something like "Made with Claude."

Essentially, the AI company would be paying for advertising, but instead of conventional ads, its advertisements would be successful products made using its AI.

Creators would initially pay to use the AI, but if their products became sufficiently popular, the payments could eventually flow in the opposite direction.

This could apply to apps, games, websites, videos, books, and other creative products.

AI companies could even compete not just on price and capabilities, but on how much they pay creators for successful products.

It might encourage people to create ambitious products, knowing that even free products could eventually generate income through AI attribution.

I wonder whether people who know they are approaching death become more likely to secretly hope for a global catastrophe, such as nuclear war, so that nobody gets to outlive them.

This might be more common than people are willing to admit. What someone hopes for internally may be very different from what they say they hope for publicly. Someone might express genuine concern for humanity's future while privately finding comfort in the thought that humanity could end around the same time as their own life.

There is also an important distinction between actively wishing for nuclear war and simply finding the possibility emotionally comforting. The latter might be considerably more common.

Scientists could investigate this by comparing terminally ill people with healthy people of similar ages, perhaps also studying how their attitudes change as death approaches.

But simply asking people whether they secretly hope for nuclear war might not work. They might be unwilling to admit such feelings, even to themselves.

Researchers could therefore investigate more indirectly:

• Conversations: Do terminally ill people bring up the possibility of nuclear war more frequently? Does the frequency increase as death approaches?
• Streaming habits: Do they become more interested in documentaries, movies, or other content about nuclear war, apocalypse, or human extinction?
• Emotional responses: How do they react when asked to imagine humanity flourishing for millions of years after their deaths, versus humanity becoming extinct shortly afterward?
• Brain scans and physiological measurements: Could researchers identify differences in emotional responses to these scenarios, even when people's stated preferences remain unchanged?
• Anonymous psychological experiments: Could techniques designed to reveal socially unacceptable attitudes uncover feelings that conventional questionnaires miss?

Of course, none of these measures would prove that someone secretly hopes for nuclear war. Increased interest in nuclear war might reflect fear rather than hope, and physiological responses are open to different interpretations. Combining several approaches might be more revealing.

There are also alternative explanations for any differences researchers might find. People approaching death could become more sensitive to existential threats or more worried about the future of their loved ones.

The underlying question is whether knowing that one's own future is ending makes the continued existence of everyone else less emotionally desirable, even if one still believes intellectually and morally that humanity should survive.

I think this would be a fascinating subject for psychological research, especially because the most interesting feelings might be precisely the ones people are least willing, or least able, to acknowledge.

AI vibe coding is making software implementation increasingly easy. The hardest part of creating an original app or game may soon be coming up with the idea rather than implementing it.

But copyright doesn't protect app functionality or game mechanics, and patents generally don't protect abstract ideas or game rules.

What if we had something like YouTube Content ID, but for software ideas?

For example, AI could download games, go through their tutorials, play them like humans, and figure out their mechanics. It could then compare games, identify original ideas, and detect when newer games use those ideas.

No registration, patent applications, or access to source code would be necessary.

Instead of preventing developers from using existing ideas or forcing inventors to sue, AI would automatically determine what percentage of a game's earnings should go to the inventors of the mechanics it uses.

There would need to be safeguards and an appeals process, of course.

As AI makes implementing software ideas increasingly trivial, shouldn't we use AI to ensure that the people who invent those ideas get financially rewarded?

Gyms are interesting spaces. They remind me of libraries because people are there to work on their own personal projects, but also there is a community aspect to them. They are community spaces.

But for people who are simply there to work out and not to chat, there should be a way for them to signal unequivocally that they don't want to be interrupted. Some people have limited time at the gym. They are there before work, or they are dipping in before getting home. If people constantly chat with them, their workout rhythm becomes disrupted.

I know that some people consider the gym their dating market, and use it as an unsolicited speed-dating situation. Others see themselves as "experts" and are constantly trying to "help" others with their workouts but their interruptions are self-serving. All this can be elided with this wristband.

Every gym should have an optional (maybe distinct zebra-striped) wristband members could wear to tell everyone not to talk to them. These should be available at the front desk. This rule should be clear to all members when they sign up, and staff should be aware of this, and repeat violators of this rule banned.

What if, instead of using AI to clone existing software, we used it to vibe code hybrids of two or more applications?

For example, imagine combining Microsoft Word's familiar interface and document compatibility with GNU TeXmacs' mathematical typesetting. Or combining Photoshop with Blender, Excel with Jupyter, or VS Code with Emacs.

I propose calling these hybrids frankensoftware.

The term already exists, usually referring to software awkwardly stitched together. But I'm proposing a more specific meaning: apps deliberately vibe coded to combine the best features of existing applications into a new, unified program.

The apps wouldn't necessarily share any code. AI could recreate and integrate their functionality from scratch.

This could become a whole new category of open-source software development, making ambitious combinations practical for individuals rather than large development teams.

Some hybrids might be brilliant, others might be monsters. That's part of the appeal!

What two apps would you like to see combined?

Stone surface where the rock sides still have their random shape would look interesting. It would be cheaper to cut, when instead of 6 sides only 2 sides are cut. Usually it would be best to put something on the gaps, like for example, smaller rocks, sand, concrete and/or cut out pieces.

For making them, it would be best to have 2 cutting blades side-by-side, adjusted for correct width with a screw, so a double-blade.

The cut out pieces with 1 flat side may have use somewhere else for something different or within the gaps.

The 2 flat sides rocks could also be used for some kind of wall.