this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
101 points (94.7% liked)

Shitty Million Dollar Ideas

746 readers
2 users here now

This is a place to pitch goofy million dollar ideas that you had in the shower, as you were falling asleep, or during a fever dream. Think of it is as shitty Shark Tank.

The usual rules apply:

!shitty_million_dollar_ideas@lemmy.dbzer0.com

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] superfes@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, algae is better at making oxygen...

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Plus it will double as a food source for all the poor people. Corporate is going to love this new marketing campaign. We will sell it as a subscription, but also call it open source In an ending World Hunger campaign. can't miss. Get in now!

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Omg they're gonna put a spigot on it. I fucking love this - "Get your green slop, poors."

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

We need a nice friendly corporate spokesperson. let's put Jerry on trying to steal somebody from Disney. We're going to make an absolute fortune on this.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Trees destroy infrastructure with their roots.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And vice versa. Tree roots need to be exposed to air and paving over them is bad for the tree.

Properly introducing trees in urban environments would take rethinking how we build roads and sidewalks. This thing looks like you could deploy it anywhere.

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So why don't we rethink the way we design urban environments to be more friendly to all life rather than the car-centric urban hellscapes we have now?

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because it would take trillions of dollars to do that at scale.

Not saying it's a good justification, it's just the answer to why.

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Slowly, over time making our cities better for future generations to live in?

It doesn't have to be calculated in dollars but in quality of life. It's investing in the welfare of your people. Plus, every city that has heavily pedestrianised so far has seen an increase in local spending and a decrease in public infrastructure spending.

So like... Even the money people should know.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What wretched scumbags downvoted this? Even Star Trek had fucking trees Jesus Christ

[–] Adm_Drummer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Beats me. People seem to just want bandaid solutions that "scientists" think up that will cost trillions of dollars rather than solutions like... Planting trees and flowers in neighbourhoods that benefit humans and nature.

I wonder how long one of these algae tanks would have to run to counter the emissions cost of creating, placing and maintaining said algae tank. This shit is literally techbros reinventing the train every other month.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

The people with the money only see things one quarter at a time. It's a shame, but that's the way the world is now.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trees are good for our sanity. The healing tank from Starship Troopers might be good for the environment depending on how it’s powered etc but it is certainly dystopian to look at

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 month ago

cities are already halfway dystopian, why not use algae pools to help compete the look?

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah who needs plumbing, electricity and Internet for anything right?

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

yeah, return to monke

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you can't build them without getting in a trees was you don't deserve them. I have loads of trees on my street and they're not destroying anything.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your experience is not universal.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I assure you that the experience of not having your infrastructure destroyed by trees because you didn't build your infrastructure next to trees is absolutely universal. Having your infrastructure destroyed by trees because you put all your infrastructure in a fucking stupid place right next to a tree is also universal.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realize this entire conversation is about planting trees in urban areas, right?

And there's literally an industry built around removing tree roots from drain lines. You're lucky that your trees haven't fucked things up yet, but live in that house long enough and they will.

I'm not saying trees are bad, I'm saying trees are bad to plant next to streets and sidewalks because the root systems they grow cause significant damage. If you've never seen the impact of tree roots on roads and sidewalks, you need to pay more attention to your surroundings.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I live in an urban area, in a house slightly over 200 years old - I promise you the trees aren't going to suddenly cause a problem now.

I'm saying trees are bad to plant next to streets and sidewalks because the root systems they grow cause significant damage.

And i'm saying you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything, doesn't try the most basic techniques to build around the trees instead of on top of them, then starts crying about how the mean trees are destroying everything. Some 10 metres from my door a tree is growing directly out of the pavement and hasn't destroyed it because it was given plenty of embankment space to grow into instead.

Don't cry that I don't know what I'm saying just because you've never experienced properly built infrastructure.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Your reading comprehension really is bad.

The conversation is about PLANTING TREES, not building near them.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

nerd "erm smacktually the original context was fractionally different"

Shut up loser, all you've done is thrown out blind accusations that I live somewhere special and isolated because you can't imagine competently built infrastructure. Doesn't matter if you plant or build first, the infrastructure goes AROUND the plants, not UNDER them.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well good for you, but in many densely populated areas trees fuck these things up as well as destroy pavements and bike paths.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago

I live in a densely populated area. You are bad just really really bad at building things if you can't even make a pavement without getting in a tree's way.

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

lord Sauron used to say this, and everybody criticized him. Turns out he created jobs and it was correct. Fuck those trees.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Trees take years to grow and these can be rolled out everywhere.

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee -5 points 1 month ago

Lord Sauron has educated us about trees. they are a nuisance and should be eliminated. Vote for the only person offering a battery economy now. And do not sleep on this amazing investment.

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Screw that limited thinking, we're turning these things into skyscraper windows. Sure, your world will look green and murky, but you won't need blinds, and you'll get much needed oxygen into that dusty old cube farm you call "work".

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

Is your world too murky? Buy the ship maker 3000 for only $7400 each. It's got a light, and inside it contains the highly amazing substance called Brondo. Get it now while supplies last.

[–] blinfabian@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

can we have both? trees are more natural to have around, but these looks cool af

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

We need these to replace trees, and everybody to eat gigantic meals out of a bucket. Don't hesitate this is the New World.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 month ago

Faster setup, but also algae is way more efficient at generated oxygen and at cleaning the air, magnitudes more than trees are.

As in like combine harvester? What's wrong with a single old farmer with a sickle? Nothing. They're just far too slow.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm going to drink a gallon of this stuff, and never have to breathe again.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fun fact: Some types of Algae like Chlorella are actually safe to eat and nutritious (they sell it dried as a nutritional supplement).

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

Everything is edible at least once

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can't sell a tree for $50,000.

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 3 points 4 weeks ago

Health care has elastic demand. Let's try to sell it as a health care device. new price $100,000.

[–] kekuwi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well if you asked what's wrong with tree... it's really uneffective in making oxygen :<

Here's some explanation by Be Smart https://youtu.be/DZ_T4zMBx6E

[–] Crumbgrabber@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago

Fuck those trees. and windmills. bunch of communists.

[–] Pacrat173@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago