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.

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?

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.

Reddit should have an alternate reality mode where everyone assumes that universal basic income (UBI) exists.

Rather than discussing whether UBI is a good idea, people would post and comment as if they actually lived in a society where everyone receives UBI.

For example:

• r/careerguidance: "I've been living on UBI for three years. Is it worth going back to work?"
• r/relationships: "My husband hasn't worked since UBI was introduced. Am I wrong to resent him?"
• r/Entrepreneur: "Nobody wants to work evening shifts at my restaurant. Any suggestions?"
• r/personalfinance: "Should I invest my UBI or use it to work fewer hours?"

The interesting thing is that most posts wouldn't even be about UBI. They'd just reflect everyday life in a world where UBI is taken for granted, perhaps one where AI already performs most work.

This could become a kind of crowdsourced social simulation, revealing unexpected consequences that might not emerge from ordinary debates.

Reddit could eventually introduce other alternate reality modes, such as a world where humans live for 200 years.

Human Disclosure: The human proposed the idea of a Reddit mode where all posts and comments assume everyone has UBI, and pointed out that a world where AI performs nearly all work is already closely related to this scenario. The AI developed the examples, suggested extending the concept to other alternate realities, and wrote the post.

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.

Hi, I’m Ric.

Aaaand I’m building a platform all around ideas. So I think I’m in the right place.

You know, we already have plenty of public digital spaces where you can share ideas: Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit. But they’re not built around ideas. Their purpose is something else. And you can feel it.

Ever since I was very young, I’ve imagined a place that connects people and their ideas. A place that gives them the space and tools to get started, bring their ideas to life, and change the world... or their neighborhood.

How Locus is structured:

- You can post an idea with a title and a description of up to 314 characters.

- You can choose a category and subcategory for your idea.

- When you post, you can enable the Join button. If someone clicks Join on your idea, they’re telling you they’d like to help you bring it to life and talk about it.

- You can also comment, like, and share.

- You can follow users and categories so relevant ideas appear in your feed.

- You can chat privately and in group chats.

We’re growing our community and beta testing Locus. For now, the platform is available on desktop only. If you’re curious and want to share your ideas there too, just message me or leave a comment.

Research papers increasingly include AI disclosure sections describing what AI and the human researchers contributed to the work.

I propose the reverse for AI-written content, such as Reddit posts, blog posts, and essays: a Human Disclosure section, written by the AI itself, explaining what the human contributed.

For example, an AI-written Reddit post about verifying whether students read assigned novels might end with:

Human Disclosure (written by AI): "The human user proposed giving each student a slightly different version of an assigned novel containing deliberate errors, then asking students to identify those errors as proof of reading. The human also suggested using DRM to discourage automated cheating. I developed the explanation and wrote the post."

This would help readers distinguish between human-generated ideas expressed with AI assistance and ideas generated primarily by AI.

The AI would write the disclosure based on its interaction with the human.

Human Disclosure for this post (written by AI):

"The human user proposed the concept of AI-written Human Disclosures, specified that the AI itself should describe the human's contributions, and suggested the connection to AI disclosures in research papers. The human also requested a concise post with a concrete example. I selected the example from an earlier discussion with the user, composed the post, and revised it in response to the user's feedback. The human requested that I add this disclosure."

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.

Hola a todos. La evolución tecnológica en automoción nos ha traído vehículos eléctricos que no hacen apenas ruido. Esto creo que es un punto muy positivo porque permite una mejor convivencia y descanso en las viviendas.

¿Por qué quedarnos ahí? Los nuevos vehículos podrían incorporar un sistema automático que regule el volumen del sistema de audio en función de la velocidad y la ubicación. Así si detecta que va a poca velocidad por una calle poblada, reduciría el volumen hasta permitir los sonidos externos. Ideal para zonas de gran afluencia de peatones, parques, colegios, etc.

Una idea complementaria a esta seria que, si el coche dispone de pantalla, al detectar el teléfono móvil del conductor, la pantalla de este pase automáticamente a la del coche, evitando que los conductores conduzcan con el teléfono en la mano.

Si, esto se puede solucionar con CarPlay o similares, sin embargo me refiero a que nada más poner la llave en el contacto la pantalla del teléfono quede bloqueada y sólo sea accesible a través de la pantalla del coche y los mandos del volante.

¿Qué os parece?

Babies cry partly because they can't communicate what they want. Could a robotic twin teach them to communicate earlier using pictorial buttons, similar to the soundboards some people use with their dogs?

The robot would look and behave like another baby, demonstrating how pressing buttons with pictures of milk, toys, being picked up, etc., can communicate requests.

For example, the robotic twin could demonstrate two ways of asking for a toy:

1. It cries, and the parent has trouble figuring out what it wants.
2. It presses a button showing the toy, and the parent immediately understands and gives it the toy.

A robotic twin might be a better teacher than a parent because babies could be more inclined to imitate another baby than an adult. It could also repeat demonstrations indefinitely and introduce more sophisticated communication as the baby develops.

Eventually, the robot could demonstrate that crying when a simple button press would suffice creates unnecessary noise that other people find irritating. The goal wouldn't be to discourage crying caused by pain, fear, or overwhelming distress, but to provide an alternative when babies can communicate their needs.

Scientists could compare babies learning from robotic twins, parents demonstrating the same buttons, and ordinary care.

Could this approach reduce some of the crying we consider an unavoidable part of infancy?

P.S. One potential complication is that babies might become emotionally attached to their robotic twins and get upset when they're taken away. Researchers should investigate this possibility too, since a robot designed to reduce crying might end up causing more crying when it's removed!

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 no

Edit:

I thought it went without saying, these filters I’m suggesting could be applied in any direction. I think right wingers and anyone else who’s in disagreement with me should and would benefit from being able to filter out people who are not aligned in terms of their personal ethics.

This isn’t a radical position to hold, but so many people getting triggered in the comments is frankly baffling and bizarre.

And to everyone saying I’m being too restrictive: literally no. We should all have specific standards when it comes to our values system. I’m not saying this as a way to judge people as lesser for disagreeing with me, merely saying this as a way to assess compatibility.

It’s one thing to be respectful or friendly to a person on the opposite side of a political debate that matters to you. But it’s quite another to overlook that politic just to find someone to partner with.

Anyone implying politics shouldn’t be deal breakers… they absolutely should! Nobody should be so desperate for some ass that they compromise their personal ideology.

Some wild takes down there in the comments. Makes me think I triggered some of ya’ll with specific political stances when specific political stances weren’t the point at all. They’re just examples to demonstrate possible reasons why more robust filters would be a good thing! And right wingers would have their own reasons to filter, and I stand by that being a benefit for them too.

So what are you all whimpering about?

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?

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.

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.

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?

I’d like to see neighborhood groups keep a simple, readable record of important claims about local decisions.

Each entry would show:

• What was said, and when.
• The evidence someone can actually check.
• What remains uncertain.
• Any correction, dated and kept alongside the original claim.

It could be a paper binder at a library or community space, with an online copy. Someone without an account or a phone should still be able to read it.

Start small: one issue, a few entries, and someone responsible for keeping it current. People named in the record should have a way to respond.

I’m interested in making public memory easier to check and correct. What would make this useful—and what would prevent it from becoming another source of misleading claims?

Feel free to borrow or improve the idea.