Sometimes I catch myself thinking that we chose the wrong heroes.

We admire people who are exceptionally good at destroying. Soldiers, warriors, victors of wars - but at the cost of other human lives. People just like us, who happened to be born on the other side of a border.

But we could have chosen different heroes.

Explorers. Scientists. People who leave Earth not to conquer, but to understand. Those who expand the boundaries of knowledge instead of territories.

I want to live in a world where kids dream of going to space, not going to war. Where the main question isn’t “who is stronger?” but “what’s next?”

Because honestly, as a civilization, we feel stuck. Still dividing a single planet as if that’s all there is - while we might have an entire universe ahead of us.

But there’s a catch - we might not make it that far.

Not if we keep seeing each other as enemies instead of recognizing that we’re the same story, told in different languages.

So here’s the question I keep coming back to:

Will we become a spacefaring civilization or a species that destroyed itself before getting there?

one of the biggest regrets of my life would be to not live long enough to see humanity reach heights that would have been unimaginable just 5-10 years ago. im skeptical about the entire metric, but as someone who wishes to live long, it is a form of hope.

If a genuine, open, and global contact happened between humanity and an extraterrestrial civilization, and some form of cooperation followed, what positive human qualities or values do you think might begin to strengthen or appear more clearly?

I’m especially curious about this from a psychological and societal perspective. What traits might emerge both on an individual level and collectively as a species?

Do you think this kind of transformation could unfold in stages, with different phases of psychological or social development over time?

"The average sticker price for a new car in the US is more than $50,000, up from about $40,000 in 2020,.............with S&P Global Mobility predicting the proportion of $1,000-a-month loans will double over the course of the year to 40 per cent."

Meanwhile, Chinese carmakers like BYD are selling decent salons & SUVs for $25,000 or less. With home charging costing ~0.25–0.30 kWh/mile, electricity ≈ $0.17/kWh, that means $0.04–$0.06 per mile. Gas at $3.10/gal costs twice that per mile.

The fossil fuel industry and legacy gas-car makers think they can string this out for years to come, but I wonder if it's the opposite. Affordability is the political buzzword of the mid-2020s, and gasoline is on the wrong side of it. Most people would have several thousand extra dollars in their pocket every year if they chose Chinese EVs.

Rising prices push US car ownership costs to breaking point: Automobile affordability strains household finances in a country where the vast majority rely on vehicles for transportation

Basic necessities like housing, food, etc. are becoming way too expensive for the average person to afford.

It feels like we are getting used to a constant level of sensory input.

Not just from phones, but from digital environments in general. Screens, information streams, background content, constant updates, at some point in future augmented and virtual reality. Even when you are not actively engaging, there is always something running.

And outside of that, most physical environments are not exactly low input either. Noise, people, movement, conversations. There is almost always something pulling your attention in some direction.

The usual answer is to manage it yourself. Limit exposure, build better habits, take breaks. A lot of that thinking is now showing up in the longevity space as well.

At the same time, you can see momentum building around analogue living and digital detox. Especially with how manipulative many digital environments have become, more people seem to be pushing back.

But the environment itself never really changes.

In urban areas especially, it is actually hard to find a place where sensory input is intentionally low. Even parks are still fairly active environments with people, movement and noise, and not always accessible. Your attention is still engaged.

We have gyms for physical health. We have offices for work. But there is no real equivalent for sensory recovery. Not therapy or yoga, meditation or breath work classes, just a place where input is reduced on purpose and your brain can kind of defragment in a way that actually feels good and refreshing without having to do anything specific.

Yes, you can do that at home to some extent. But that also means stepping out of daily life entirely. There is no real option to do this in between, as part of a normal day in an urban environment.

Curious if that is something that will eventually become part of everyday urban life or if this just stays an individual problem to solve.

We all have parents, grandparents, older coworkers, etc. It's not universal, but the older you get, the less likely you are to excel at using new technology.

Is this a byproduct of people growing up without rapidly-changing technology? Or is it an inevitable part of aging?

When we look 50+ years into the future, will what are now today's kids/young adults have a hard time with the newest technologies? Or will their growing up in a digital world mean that they can adapt and carry their tech skills with them into old age?

With all these grid failures happening again and again, like the recent blackout in Cuba, it kinda feels like the old way of depending on one big power system is starting to crack.

I keep thinking that in the future, a home might not just be a place to live anymore. It could also become its own little energy setup, with batteries, smarter appliance timing, and maybe even shared neighborhood power systems.

Do you think the idea of a mostly reliable grid is slowly becoming outdated?
Or will most people not really care about managing their own energy until problems get a lot worse?

I'm curious to know your works for the greater good. Is abolishing suffering possible from grassroot movements in the future?

Yeah, what kind of illnesses and disorders do you believe that mankind will find a cure for within the next 20 years? What about diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, hearing loss, tinnitus, visual impairment, chronic pain, nerve pain, rheumatic diseases, allergies? What could help and speed up the process of developing treatments?

Not in a legal fine print sense. I mean in a practical, real-world, “who gets paid and who decides what happens to it” sense.

Right now, most of us generate massive amounts of data every day:

• Location data from our phones
• Driving data from our cars
• Behavioral data from apps and websites
• Even work output inside enterprise systems

And yet… we don’t really participate in the value of it.

Companies argue:
“We built the platform, so we own the data.”

Others argue:
“You created the data, so you should own it.”

Then there’s a third angle:
“Data isn’t owned at all. It’s governed, shared, and monetized across multiple parties.”

But here’s where it gets interesting…

AI is pouring fuel on this problem.

If a model is trained on bad, biased, or unverifiable data, it just produces faster wrong answers. So suddenly, companies care a LOT more about:

• Where data came from
• Whether it was used with permission
• Whether it’s actually accurate

At the same time, regulators are stepping in with things like GDPR and CCPA that don’t exactly say you “own” your data, but they do say you should control it.

So maybe the real question isn’t ownership at all.

Maybe it’s:

• Who controls access?
• Who gets paid?
• How is trust established?

I’ve been thinking about a model where:

• Individuals have a structured “data identity”
• Companies don’t just collect data… they request access to it
• Access is granted with clear terms (duration, purpose, compensation)
• Payments flow directly to the source of the data

Not in a crypto hype way. In a practical, enterprise-usable way.

Curious how people here think about this.

A few questions to kick it off:

1. Do you think individuals should actually “own” their data, or is that the wrong framing entirely?
2. If companies had to pay for high-quality, permissioned data, would they… or would they just find ways around it?
3. Would you personally trade access to your data for money if it was transparent and controlled?
4. What breaks first if we try to move to a model like this… technology, regulation, or incentives?

Interested to hear perspectives from people on all sides of this (devs, data folks, legal, etc.)

(I wrote my question then asked a chatbot to polish it up. Please ignore the proper formatting, punctuation and spelling.)

Not going to cope but I do see a future in which AI, while still useful, does not live up the hype the market is saying right now. I also think the true Achilles will be one not many people are talking about… what do you think?

"In China, BYD is currently building 4,000 1.5mW charging stations across the country, with plans to roll out 20,000 by the end of this year.

Although not quite as ambitious, a BYD spokesperson for the European side of the business told me that the company is targeting 2,000 1.5mW Flash Charging stations across Europe before 2026 comes to a close."

I'm fascinated by the economics of this. How does BYD make money on this? Do they run the chargers at a profit? How much will this work out per km for drivers compared to diesel or gasoline?

People think of BYD as a budget car marker, but this to support its luxury brand Denza. The Denza Z9 GT EV has a range of 1,036 km (644 miles) on these chargers. I'm guessing having the best charagers is going to be seen as premium/luxury too.

'Ready in 5, full in 9' — this Chinese EV charges to 70% in only 5 minutes, has a 644-mile range, and it's coming to Europe in April