Ask HN: What Problem Would You Solve with Unlimited Resources? [May 2025] | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What Problem Would You Solve with Unlimited Resources? [May 2025]

7 pointshedayet40 comments

I love the innovative ideas and unexpected insights from HN citizens. Let’s go deep—what challenge would you tackle if you had unlimited resources, like boundless funding, talent, or time?

Why would you choose to solve it? Do you actually need unlimited resources to start?

View on HN

I live in a city with a large number of unhoused people. I think I would use unlimited resources to buy and renovate old buildings[1] downtown to build housing, and fund support services on-site to help people escape homelessness and addiction.

I would want to solve this because unhoused people are suffering, and downtown (as a neighborhood) has been sort of hollowed out by business choosing to leave for practical reasons (WFH) and because of the perception of "too many" unhoused people. I love downtown, it's just not a pleasant place to spend time, especially at night.

I do not have the resources nor the political acumen for these kinds of initiatives, and I think it would take a great deal of resources to not only buy the land but demolish or renovate the buildings. It would create a lot of jobs (construction at first) but I think there's a large amount of activation energy required to get started.

[1]: https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/legal-action-taken-a...

But why would you do that when you are guaranteed to fail?

It's very twee of people to believe that solving homelessness is a matter of resource allocation, or if we were all just more philanthropic, or if only there were more services and we could get to people where they're at.

But it's never a matter of these things. Being homeless has many advantages, many perks, and indeed there are non-negligible percentages of homeless people who prefer to be that way. And if you try to talk them out of it, they will resist. And there are also non-negligible percentages of homeless people who don't know how to be anything but, and when it becomes a way of life for them, they are technically feral, and it is simply a monumental effort to change them into "housed people" who can actually manage a stable household. That's a big ask for so many people, including those who do not struggle with mental health and addiction issues.

The root causes of homelessness are manifold and varied. There may be a dozen identifiable root causes here; are you going to attack all of them equally? Even your unlimited resources cannot. You need to work with a willing population here. Many homeless people are simply unwilling. Many others are not so selfish that they wouldn't share those resources with others, and that's a huge problem. Section 8 regularly chases people out after they've let in undesirable guests. SNAP has to close out people who are sharing their food resources. If you've got unlimited resources, then who's going to tell you that you need to allocate them judiciously to get the best impact?

One huge reason that people are out on the streets is because, 50 years ago, they may have been institutionalized. And that can't be done presently, so they are held by "virtual restraints" such as drugs and clinics. And so, if you really wanted to get people off the streets, would you ramp up imprisonment and incarceration? Would you lower the standards, to institutionalize people who cannot care for themselves?

What sort of mass labor camps and imprisonment looks attractive to you at this point, Mr. Unlimited Resources? Would you also pay for the trains to cart them off to wherever they are designated? It doesn't feel so good to "get people off the streets" when your realistic alternatives have an unsavory edge to them.

The "choice" to be homeless sort of confuses adaptation with preference. People don't _choose_ trauma responses; brains develop survival mechanisms that self-reinforce when lacking intervention.

Complex problems require layered solutions, but difficulty is not equal to impossibility. Also, not trying kinda makes us a tiny bit more evil.

Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^

> Homelessness is tractable when we understand that basic/fundamental needs precede behavior change ^^

Unfortunately, and it breaks my heart to conclude that, some people can't be brought back to socialization. I'm talking from first-person experience living in the streets for a while.

That is a realistic attitude.

I think problems like this can be best informed by those who have interacted with very different kinds of homelessness on its own terms.

But there are so many people already where actual bare-bones housing is so inadequate, and it's been that way for so long, that desperation can only increase. More & more of whom are working for a living but that's just not quite enough to maintain domestic life as much as it used to be. There is just no substitute for more housing in the most generous way.

OTOH whether it's somebody who's penniless, or a rock star on endless tour, or anything in between, if they are not congruent with domestic life, or domestic life is not suitable for them, this is not where domestic housing effort is helpful. Depending on need or desperation, other kinds of help which can make a bigger positive impact is where effort should be concentrated.

Accelerated transition from homeless to a domestic environment should turn into a successfully beaten path with stronger force enabling it, but is most sensible only for those who are most suitable.

Actual "socialization" may still be too high a bar for some of those who thrive domestically otherwise, but the reverse can also be true.

Homelessness, like poverty, crime, and ignorance will never be eradicated. There are just too many people who refuse to accept a way out of them, even if others think that way is easy.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. That does not mean we should stop finding ways to help those who feel trapped by them and will take a opportunity when it is presented. There are countless 'success stories' where people change.

Thus, 'solving' homelessness is a fools errand. Using resources wisely to maximize its effect on as many as possible should be the goal.

Having read Mutual Aid by Dean Spade I understand better what you're saying, namely that solidarity amongst people outside the dominant paradigm of capitalism (owning land, renting, working for scraps while the Capitalist's boats are lifted higher) can be quite strong, and that they have extensive freedoms while also not having the luxuries I grew up with (hot water, food when I'm hungry, a quiet and relatively secure place to sleep, lots of stuff and room to store it, health insurance, ...). If we in the US decoupled health care from employment that would be a huge step in caring for people here. Capitalists (if anything I'm a small-c capitalist because I sometimes "own" land but I'm against owning more than the property I live on, and I buy/use things produced by the enslaved labor of others- this hand-me-down mobile computer, for one) would be with less leverage in that case, though.

Edit to add: if I wasn't a parent and didn't have support from my spouse I might be homeless or at least "highly mobile". I'd probably live with family or friends first, and hopefully find again meaningful work (teaching, probably, but the list is longer now), but I'm not interested in amassing wealth to survive whatever apocalypse. I choose to survive in community with other humans, a far richer experience.

Also, I didn't include education on the list of luxuries because I consider the dominant form of schooling in the US to be akin to the "kill the indian, save the man" residential schools. We could all be indigenous to the land we grow up on, even as children of immigrants without deep roots, but so much nonsense gets in the way.

I solved the problem of finding factors for the product of prime numbers. I solved it for five years. I used different methods. There is even a graphical method https://github.com/azhibaev/c3_opengl

As a result, I came to the creation of a new programming language based on the C language. I realized that the C++ language was an evolution, but incorrectly implemented. The mistake is that a person is forced to write classes. But a person is not able to write a correct class. Only a translator can do this. I started doing this in my work https://github.com/azhibaev/c3 but I do not have enough funding.

I plan to build a parser for the C language https://github.com/azhibaev/c_parser , and create a new grammar. I plan to support the old grammar for Python and JavaScript. In general, you will be able to write strings in these languages inside a C program.

I am inventing new ways to automatically generate programs. One new way is the ability to call a non-existent function from a program with a non-existent data structure that should be created automatically when compiling the program. I'm looking for a job, but work takes up all my time and I can't do this project then.

The progress you make on difficult problems using insignificant resources can indicate such an extreme leverage of those resources, that it can be truly intimidating to those having actual significant resources themselves.

Even more threatening to those having "abundant" resources, and again a whole new level of fear by those whose resources are not a result of challenging efforts they themselves have made.

Be careful of downward pressure from those who almost never perceive any chance of being "leapfrogged" in some way or another, the unfamiliar feelings can trigger an almost instinctual response that acts to keep you separated from enough resources to become self-sustaining, if possible.

I would support every political and social movement progressing us on the spectrum from patriarchy to matriarchy. In particular I would put pressure on the legal system of countries where women are still not allowed to inherit land and property.

The next biggest problems to tackle:

  - the way we are producing proteins
  - the way we are producing energy

Short term problems to address:

  - adoption of cognitive AI in scientific research

I am building very potent autonomous AI agents now, so soon I will be able to unleash them to crunch all these problems, hopefully. :)

> I am building very potent autonomous AI agents now, so soon I will be able to unleash them to crunch all these problems, hopefully. :)

We still need the people that enforces patriarchy over matriarchy to use inferior agents.

Aging. Increasing the healthspan, i.e. the proportion of healthy years everyone has before their body starts to decay, would unlock lots of good things.

You don't need unlimited resources to start. Some approaches, such as making sure the number of immune cells that clear senescent cells stays high as we reach 40 or 50, are not that complex and could be delivered within a decade, provided sufficient funding and focus. The biotechnology is there, but we need better data to design the interventions.

Healthcare. I would loved to change things and change the incentives from them making money of ppl being sick to actually make money on people being healthy and happy. I would probably started to replace all the current doctors with AI and robots who don't make decisions based on their emotions but based on the actual data and patterns they know.

Not tech, but I would urbanize every slum/favela in my country which would make the GDP grows explosively and finally bring the marginalized to XXI century.

Unlimited?

Mine asteroids, build giant habitats in Earth and Solar orbit. Explore and colonise the Solar System.

For what reason? Fun?

All of them? "Unlimited" isn't a very interesting category for that reason.

got a list?

I figure different people have different lists, and I'm one of them :)

I'd start small, whatever it takes to overcome violence, hate, superstition, pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth.

Things like that.

With all those failings left behind forever, any lingering problems after that could then be addressed with a lot more clarity.

Finally with the resulting peace dividend, I would throw a party like you could never do with all the resources in the world beforehand.

But that's just me.

Whatever you do have at your disposal, you can always start right now at least on your own self, very few people have enough resources to reach very far anyway.

I would get rid of the Electoral College and gerrymandering.

I'd start a private army big enough to take on the E.U., then use it to hunt down every last cookie banner in the world. Nobody will ever have to click one again. Nobody would ever dare make one again.

Sites wouldn’t need cookie banners if they didn’t set cookies — you don’t need to take on the EU, just convince companies to stop tracking us.

Something to address the overwhelming spread of information (whether or not it's accurate). We are destroying each other cognitively and it is tearing society to pieces.

Frankly, if the solution was to develop some technology that destroyed all the technology that overly connects us, I'd fund and build it. We need to put our phones away.

The problem I want to solve has nothing to do with limited resources.

Lack of kindness.

There is no way to solve it.

No amount of resources, talent, funding or media can solve it.

It's a very simple problem with no solution.

Build community and protect it.

I am sorry, it makes no sense. You will just alienate whoever is kind.

Trust me, this problem has no solution.

Kindness will be gone, and no one will ever notice.

I built community with a core group of kind people. Kind people allowed, unkind people not. Totally possible.

I thought a lot about it in the past. Sounds simple, it's not.

Really it is simple, just not easy.

More accurately, somewhat difficult, and takes a bit of focused effort.

Which can more than overwhelm the simplicity.

Regardless, a lot of the most worthwhile things are neither easy nor simple.

So this has at least something going for it that most things do not.

You haven't addressed the issue.

Good call.

But it's not my issue.

I've got my hands full with things that are neither simple nor easy :)

Seems like you're wasting time then.

Rivalry between communities is what creates most cruelty.

Why not starting by considering the whole humanity a community?

You all have too many competing interests. Uniting humanity is a pipe dream, not a solution for the lack of kindness.

Lot of low quality in humanity in the aggregate. I am only interested in emotionally healthy, high empathy humans who want to defend and empower other humans. Selfish? Controlling? Not respecting of the human rights of others? Hard pass. Life is too short to compromise on who you associate with and are there for imho.

That's not kindness, that selfishness and tribalism, just like we have today.

You asked, I shared, I’m comfortable with the mental model and not concerned about the opinion of others on the topic.

off topic but I'd be very curious to know what role resource plays on kindness. i.e., to proof or disproof this hypothesis - "lack of resource increases cruelty"

Studies show that greater wealth tends to make people less considerate and prosocial. One theory is that this is because they’re no longer as interdependent on others.

The problem of evil men. I would start by seperating the evil billionaires from their property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com