An 89-year-old Reinventing the Train in His Backyard - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/flight-rail-vectorr-atmospheric-railway-train <comment><USER2> The idea of a magnetic coupling between the engine and the passenger compartment is very interesting. This could be adapted to use with self- driving automobiles on highways. They could run on their own electric power train for local journeys, then pick up a "thrust carriage" when joining a highway. This pulls them along until their exit, when they decouple and return to using their battery and on-board motors. The on-board motors could also take over for short sections for example between different thrust carriage runs.

Perhaps the thrust carriage control systems could be made smart so they automatically maintain safe spacing between vehicles and adapt their speed to the volume of traffic. They'd communicate with the vehicle to tell them when the coupling was about to end so that the vehicle can engage its own drive train to take over smoothly. Or the vehicle's self-driving systems tell the thrust carriage how fast to go depending on the traffic conditions.

This could massively extend the range of electric cars. Burying the pipes in the road network would obviously be very expensive, but the size mentioned in the article (12 inch diameter) is not prohibitive.

<comment><USER3> You wouldn't need a thrust carriage to get big fuel gains. It's enough that the cars form a tightly packed line as racing cyclists do to minimize drag to get major gains is fuel economy:

[https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-aerodynamics-affect- fuel...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-aerodynamics-affect-fuel- efficiency)

<comment><USER2> The changes in fuel economy mentioned in that article don't seem that big. On the other hand, if an electric car only needed batteries for a range of say 50km, that would be a large saving in cost and weight. The batteries are only needed for local journeys, and the thrust carriage mechanism provides almost all of the energy for long journeys.

It would probably require electrically driven thrust carriages rather than pneumatic - you would need one for every car using the system. Trucks might need 2 or 3 or more to provide enough thrust. If a magnetic coupling really works, it would be possible to attach and detach from the thrust carriage at motorway intersections without slowing down any more than cars do at the moment.

<comment><USER4> > It would probably require electrically driven thrust carriages rather than > pneumatic - you would need one for every car using the system.

Not necessarily one per car. You'd probably have a chain of thrust carriages, with maybe some spacing in between each individual carriage. One or several cars would clump onto a thrust carriage -- there's nothing to prevent them from being quite long.

When it's time to get off the highway there might be a hole in the clump for a bit until someone getting onto the highway fills it in.

The one issue I see is that, in order to disconnect from the thrust carriage, you have to have a way to do so. The logical method is to use an electromagnet that can be powered on/off to connect/disconnect but then the car has to power that -- and that might sap it's range a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A pilot line using similar technology was built in 1983 in Porto Alegre, south of Brazil (I used to live there). It was deactivated shortly after, but the elevated track still exists [1]. A new 600m stretch was built in 2013 at the airport using updated technology and still runs today.

The same company also installed a line in Jakarta, Indonesia which has been in operation for 28 years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway#Aeromovel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway#Aeromovel)

[1] [https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruriak/3270276680/in/photolist...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruriak/3270276680/in/photolist-5YZ2jG- nKkfux-kWD35z-TDdR7) [2] more pictures including the new one: [https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=aeromovel%20porto%20aleg...](https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=aeromovel%20porto%20alegre)

<comment><USER6> This YouTube video gives a pretty good overview of Jakarta's Aeromovel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2Zxn7ybNQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2Zxn7ybNQ). It's pretty primitive compared to VECTORR, but it is still operational (it just runs in a theme park, though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> When they ask 'why has it not been this way" isn't the obvious answer 1) Infrastructure cost. Building this vs tracks on the ground would be a significantly higher investment. And 2) if something goes wrong with the engine, the entire line is shut down, vs pushing a train off the track and other trains continuing.

And I missing something but aside form the gradient capability I didn't see much advantage presented here. And if you are going to build these atmospheric pipes why not put the carriages inside them? I wonder if you could combine the 2. Have express trains shooting through the pipes and local/scenic trains riding that energy on-top. Workable or not, great to see people developing ideas!

<comment><USER8> > if you are going to build these atmospheric pipes why not put the carriages > inside them

Because when the vacuum breaks then people die if they are inside. This happens to be one of the biggest weaknesses of Hyperloop. It's not a good system when a failure _anywhere_ in the pipes causes a massive loss of life. If this guy's propulsion fails then, well, the train stops gradually, not a biggie. If air enters into a vacuum tube where the Hyperloop carriage is, the shockwave will do something to the carriage people ride in and it won't be pretty.

<comment><USER9> >If air enters into a vacuum tube where the Hyperloop carriage is, the shockwave will do something to the carriage people ride in

This is Thunderf00t's "shock wave" argument, and it has survived frequent debunkings. Are we really so easily misled that slapping sciencey branding behind any poorly thought out claim will cause people to repeat it as truth?

The huge thing he forgot is... _pipes are not lossless!_ A tube break would initially cause the air to rush in at the speed of sound, but after a few kilometers the backpressure from friction with the tube walls will slow the air to highway speed and spread out the pressure rise. The way it works out, if you're close enough to the breach to be killed by the pressure wave, you're close enough that you can't stop in time before derailing.

<comment><USER8> > The way it works out, if you're close enough to the breach to be killed by > the pressure wave, you're close enough that you can't stop in time before > derailing.

Huh? Who's derailing here? The problem is, again, that if just a seal breaks close enough to a carriage, you are dead. This is not comparable to a derailing which requires quite a bit of things go wrong on a normal train or the propulsion dying in this elderly chap's magnetic train.

<comment><USER10> I think he meant in comparison to a train track breaking up with a high-speed train on it. Read the sentence more carefully as a comparison against existing train technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's a working modern atmospheric railway, from Aeromovel, with two installations.[1] It's a reasonable low-speed system, but hasn't sold elsewhere.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2Zxn7ybNQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2Zxn7ybNQ)

</comment><comment><USER12> What is the advantage of this over a classic electric train? Weight of the locomotive? I think it is more than compensated by the ease of having more than one train on a line at a given time.

An electric cable seems way easier to maintain (and repair) than an atmospheric sealed tube.

And this has absolutely no relation with hyperloop, that solves a completely different problem (air drag at high speed)

<comment><USER13> > more than one train on a line at a given time.

Seems like the system is capable running different trains in different sections; the pressure/vacuum system is distributed and segmented down the length of the line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Cool idea. The main drawback is that the train still has to push the air in front of it so it's no better than a regular train. I think this is the main advantage of hyperloop. Air drag is significant over 40km/h.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand how you could have many trains on the same track. If one train needs to stop then do they all stop?

I guess you could have sections every half mile or so but that sounds crazy expensive. Putting a pump out in the middle of nowhere.

And how would train yards work? Assuming you used sections how long would they be? 10 feet?

Cool idea though, first time I've seen it.

<comment><USER16> In train yards you could probably use electric motorized carriages pretty easily, that could be switched to different lines (at slower speeds).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like trains. Because of different reasons, Europe and China is better suited for trains (e.g. public transport in cities available).

What I would like to see: 1\. An inter European Rail network. Possible 4 Tracks (freight and personal.

2\. This trains should be able to connect and disconnect wagons automatically. Hence a fast train may ride from Lisbon , 3 wagons get disconnected outside the city in a railroad shunting yard and then continue to Madrid, the rest of the train bypasses the city and heads to the next big center.

3\. See this technology widely used for the freight trains: [http://www.cargobeamer.eu/](http://www.cargobeamer.eu/)

The big advantage of trains is that you can run them nuclear and with Thorium reactors in the future.

<comment><USER18> (2) already happens, even if it's not automatic. The train that leaves Lisbon gets divided into two when it arrives in Medina del Campo; one part goes to Madrid, the other to Hendaye (France), where it connects up to the TGV.

<comment><USER17> I know. I have experienced it. But I have experienced it as an very time consuming process. I don't see why this can't be done in an automated way, taking minutes. Not hours.

<comment><USER19> Hours? Even back with locomotive-pulled trains where you actually had to shunt the cars to a different platform that should be below 15 minutes, and today, it adds less than three minutes to the train that is longer at the platform (Ohlsdorf, Hamburg rapid transit).

Provided that both trains arrive on time.

And doing in in flight is _much_ harder (and not legally possible), but if you would want to join/separate in the outskirts to get one into town and the other on the bypass, just the stopping and reaccelerating will cost some minutes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One of the earliest working applications of this in the 19th century was very near to where I live in Dublin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkey_Atmospheric_Railway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkey_Atmospheric_Railway). The railway was used to carry stone from the quarry (which was a few hundred feet above sea level) to the shore a couple of kilometres away, to build what is now Dun Laoghaire harbour.

One of the small roads near where the line used to run is still called Atmospheric Road.

</comment><comment><USER21> So this looks cool, but where's the improvement here over a current electric train car? Genuinely curious. The drag remains the same, and it's still electric.

Hmm, actually, I just thought of a big plus: you're not moving your massively heavy engines with you.

<comment><USER22> In a 200 car train, what percent of the weight is the engines? My rando guess is 10% max. Building all this for 10% ecceciency seems rough.

<comment><USER23> ICE 3 weighs 400T, it has 16 motors that probably weigh less than 2T each. Overall the motores are most likely less than 10% of the weight (ICE 3 is a very light train overall, with lots of motors, probably giving it an unfavorable motor/train weight compared to an electric locomotive-pulled freight train).

A bigger concern is the efficiency of transporting energy _to_ the train. That's one of the reasons why long distance routes use overhead electricity, because you can have higher voltage (12kv-25kv) compared to third rail (600v-1.5kv).

This is like third rail on steroids -- lots of construction near the ground, probably lots of energy losses all around.

Plus it's an unproven technology, with a single vendor. It'll be a hard sell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This page as some videos showing the VECTORR scale model operating in various modes: [http://www.flightrail.com/our- prototype.html](http://www.flightrail.com/our-prototype.html).

</comment><comment><USER24> The Wired article is devoid of media but there are a number of good videos of the Flight Rail on their website:

[http://www.flightrail.com/our-prototype.html](http://www.flightrail.com/our- prototype.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> Just FYI: [http://www.mtn-top-hs.org/ashley_planes.htm](http://www.mtn-top- hs.org/ashley_planes.htm)

</comment><comment><USER26> Maybe it could be used for those kiddy trains at amusement parks.

</comment><comment><USER27> As always the reason we do not have such ingenuity in the mainstream is that the mainstream is an industry addicted to the easy profits that is essentially big oil. Think of it what you will.</comment>


The Future of "Reality"? - <AUTHOR> In the next possible say 20 or less years. May we have a system maybe like neuralink that could normalize Augmented Reality or even deep dive VR? <comment><USER2> would you want it? how would you know it was safe? could that same tech "program" you? once you hook up to it, would you ever be able to tell reality from someone else's reality? I think of inception and the matrix.</comment>


Pandemic could spark unrest among West's urban poor – Red Cross aid agency - <AUTHOR> https://news.trust.org/item/20200327134620-yc7e3 <comment><USER2> I will say this once only -

If migrants are allowed in Europe unchecked as response to the Coronavirus crisis you can wave goodbye to liberal democracy forever.</comment>


Minimal Wikipedia redesign concept - <AUTHOR> http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Hacker_news

<comment><USER2> It's pretty but the lack of borders around boxes makes some articles hard to follow. Look at this for example: [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Hyperbolic_function](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Hyperbolic_function)

There are many people doing redesigns for websites and games, and they usually end up making things prettier while not improving user experience or even making it worse. So my humble request to everyone making these is to try to address the usability issues a site might have, and don't concentrate too much on the superficial look of the site.

<comment><USER3> That!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IDK, I think people tend to ignore the virtues of Wikipedia's design. It's actually really well thought out. It may not be pretty, or hip, but as far as utility goes it's hard to find a site that can beat it.

Think about how people use Wikipedia: scanning for one specific bit of information. Normal users see 90% of the information on the page as un-useful, why should meta info matter.

Overall, I think their biggest virtue is consistency, even though it's changed over the years, a user generally knows where to find what she's looking for. That's the purpose of good design, is it not?

</comment><comment><USER5> Disables zoom (iOS, Chrome).

Why do people do this? They are, even if they don't realize it, yelling "FUCK YOU" to people like me.

</comment><comment><USER6> I hope I'm not hijacking this thread in any way by posting a link to my Wikipedia redesign attempt. It's not actual code - just a visual mock-up. I posted it a while ago to Hacker News but would love to hear feedback

[http://www.interfacesketch.com/wikipedia/](http://www.interfacesketch.com/wikipedia/)

<comment><USER7> Wow. I know it's a purely personal taste thing, but I think your redesign is leagues ahead of OP's proposal. Your design keeps the informative, interconnected aspect of Wikipedia's design and then cleans it up slightly and makes it more readable, but does so in a way that won't alienate the average user.

I might actually see if I can find the time to code up a preview of your design and see how it handles 'in the wild', as such.

<comment><USER6> Thanks very much! I wanted to keep all the existing features of an article page rather than eliminate anything. I think it's possible to do this while making the page feel a little less busy and cluttered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I will just leave this here, since a lot of the comments are basically echoing Wikipedia's official stance on the subject:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unsolicited_redesigns)

</comment><comment><USER9> The large font looks ridiculous, why do you people keep doing that? If I needed bigger letters on my screen I'd adjust the DPI on my display.

<comment><USER10> I'm going to have to second this. Why waste all of this screen real estate? I zoomed it out to 67% on Chrome to make it look normal. Definitely one of my biggest pet peeves about modern web UI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the "about" page[0]:

 _But it deserves a better and more delightful design. This is my vision of how the reading experience should be like. Better typography, removed side bar, reduced clutter, improved contrast and clarity, and more open space._

By removing these useful elements, it's actually made the general experience of a web site worse. These things are needed in one form or another to make a website usable as a site and not just a page.

[0]: [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about)

<comment><USER12> As with every other Wikipedia redesign proposal, linking to J. Thomas's Wikipedia Redesign post is necessary:

[http://jgthms.com/wikipedia-redesign.html](http://jgthms.com/wikipedia- redesign.html)

<comment><USER13> Nice. This should be a required reading for every "vision"-happy hipster designer out there:

 _It works for me, in my context, on my screen, it should be fine, right? Well, that 's not designing. That's cheating. You're skewing the content's use, perverting its value._

This point is worth repeating: _design without a purpose is not design; it 's onanism_. Anyone can go spend a weekend playing with photoshop for hours to give free rein to their own "vision" and aesthetic prejudices, given enough familiarity with the tool --in a way, not too different from shopping or 'pimping' a car or what not. But an altogether different challenge is to design _for_ users, the vast majority of whom one will likely never even meet. And that requires at the very least some empathy for the poor victims stuck with one's shitty and arbitrary design choices long after one has moved on check in hand --like _disabling zoom, hello!?!??_.

So when the OP glibly says in their manifesto[1]:

" _I_ love Wikipedia. It's awesome. But it deserves a better and more delightful design. This is _my_ vision of how the reading experience should be like. Better typography, removed side bar, reduced clutter, improved contrast and clarity, and more open space."

I would respond:

1\. Ok, but try first put yourself in the shoes the hundreds of millions of users who rely on wikipedia every day and their whole spectrum of use cases, environments and needs; then

2\. try locate the totality of your own experience within that spectrum; and then

3\. ask yourself to what extent your prior notions of delight, clarity, typographic beauty, _etc_ might be highly conditioned by the peculiarities of your own experience and environment; and

4\. to what extent such acquired "good design" intuitions are really the kind of self-evident, plausibly generalizable ground truths about usability and human interaction you feel it's worth pontificating about.

[1] [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> again?!

This is wikipedia mobile with a new typo isn't it?

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_news](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_news)

<comment><USER15> In terms of readability, I actually much rather prefer this one.

<comment><USER16> I like OP's typography better in most respects, but the mobile site's line length is far more manageable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wikipedia redesigns are becoming the new Hello World.

<comment><USER18> True... but this one actually implements the design, as opposed to the photoshop mockups I normally see on some designer's blog

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The side bar on the full site provides useful links like citation and language selection, as well as basic navigation.

How do I do that here?

</comment><comment><USER20> A copy of an email I sent to the designer, "A few notes about your Wikipedia redesign":

> … custom formatting on some wikipedia pages might not look right. If you see > anything like that, let me know.

The formatting of highlighted code examples is not right. Sometimes there is extra indentation at the beginning, and the syntax highlighting is always missing. For example, compare [your Ruby (programming language) – examples]([http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Ruby_%28programming_language%2...](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Ruby_%28programming_language%29#Examples)) to [Wikipedia's Ruby (programming language) – examples]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%29...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%29#Examples)). Also, the code example `puts"Give me a number"` is missing a space compared to Wikipedia's version.

There is too big a difference between the font sizes of normal text and of code blocks. In the site, code blocks are at a readable font size while main text is overly big, and when I zoom out to 80% to make the main text more comfortable, code block text is now too small. Picture captions and infoboxes also have this problem, to a lesser extent.

On [the about page]([http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about)), "email me" should be a link to "mailto:email@example.com", so we don't have to go to your personal website and find the link in the footer.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, not another follower of "things are difficult, let's make them simple, modern and nice" camp. Will people learn that removing stuff from the product doesn't make it simple, but simplistic? Removing features (changing languages, wikimedia/wikiquote links) is not an improvement.

Sure, the font typeface is nice, and much better than original but that's about it.

Why is the text so damn huge? I know how to use zoom, thank you very much. Actually, you even broke that - take a look at timeline image of [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Hanibal](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Hanibal) \- the picture text is a tiny compared to the gigantic text - I can zoom in, but then the text becomes even bigger.

A lot of whitespace and removing virtually all the colors makes the page look very sterile. Remove scrollbar, make the links indistinguishable from text and you have a Metro/Modern(R)(TM) app. I still wonder how much brain damage the designer of that style suffers from...

No visited link indication? Is that meant to be some kind of a joke?

Obviously in some designers' minds (including yours) cleaner = better. But it's not! Wikipedia is not the award-winning oh-my-god-it-looks-so-nice page. No it's very very functional and easy to read. All those vertical lines, boxes and bars add structure and visual cues to the text and make it much easier to read. Thank you for taking it away.

No offense, but this creation is horrible.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why is the font so large?

All browsers have the ability to configure the font to whatever the user desires. Why does this site override the user's preferences, and make the body text larger?

<comment><USER22> That was my first thought. It might look pretty, but Wikipedia is mostly a text website, this would require way too much scrolling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, how am I supposed to select language?

</comment><comment><USER24> I think that the edit button is an important part of wikipedia.

Maybe some kind of menu button could be added near the search bar with the edit, history and talk links.

</comment><comment><USER25> Personally I don't think it improves on the usability and I find the font too large, meaning that I feel like I have minor tunnel vision compared to normal Wikipedia.

The only part of normal Wikipedia pages that I normally never touch is the sidebar with the different languages. I don't think I hardly ever click on anything there. It would make sense for my usage at least for the sidebar to be hidden by default.

</comment><comment><USER26> I actually like the redesign, it is cleaner and less distracting when I read. It does need some edge cases handled though. For instance, look at Russia's flag: [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Russia](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Russia) vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)

<comment><USER27> Or this: [http://imgur.com/JdfnF7a](http://imgur.com/JdfnF7a)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a really interesting approach - and I concur w/ elsen - it's not that far from wikipedia's current mobile implementation [1]

Last summer, I build a couple of MediaWiki skins; one based on Zurb's Foundation [2] and one based on Yahoo's Pure [3]

Both of these projects showed me many of the non-obvious challenges in redesigning Wikipedia; tabs, tables, and editor come to mind immediately. Cascading a new look&feel down to common (and uncommon) extensions is, of course, it's own level of effort.

1\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) 2\. [http://foreground.thingelstad.com/wiki/Main_Page](http://foreground.thingelstad.com/wiki/Main_Page) 3\. [http://filament.thingelstad.com/wiki/Main_Page](http://filament.thingelstad.com/wiki/Main_Page)

</comment><comment><USER29> This would work well as a userstyle for Wikipedia if it were available. The type is far too large though, I needed to zoom out about 50% for comfort.

Compare a featured article seen on the front page in the mobile version of Wikipedia [1], with this site's style [2]. The mobile version keeps the text smaller and narrower, making for easier desktop reading. There ultimately isn't much this new style improves upon though.

[1] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Joy](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Joy)

[2] [http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Cyclone_Joy](http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Cyclone_Joy)

</comment><comment><USER7> I do like clean minimalism, but I'm not sure it works on a site like Wikipedia. The NYTimes recent redesign was a pretty good meld of minimalism around the article but retaining functionality.

I fear that your design kind of strips away a whole ton of functionality and with something like Wikipedia functionality is infinitely more important than design.

Kudos on actually coding up a completely working live preview though. That's not something I see too often with these kinds of proposals.

</comment><comment><USER30> I prefer the current wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER31> There are still some rough edges, but definitely one of the best redesigns I have seen.

\+ large, beautiful readable fonts

\+ Search bar is a search bar and easy to find

\+ unnecessary borders removed

\- Could use a little bit more branding

\- No change-language feature

\- Zoom disabled on mobile devices

\- Some elements needs size tuning

</comment><comment><USER32> I prefer this redesign [http://wikipedia.gkvasnikov.com](http://wikipedia.gkvasnikov.com)

<comment><USER33> That's just a bunch of images. The linked page actually works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Typography is good, but text with lots of links in it is difficult to read: the low weight font and the blue color doesn't work on the pure-white background. Maybe slightly darker color for links or a little bolder?

</comment><comment><USER35> Actually looks really good.

But... why are you leaking my information to facebook, twitter, yandex.ru and google analytics?

</comment><comment><USER36> For the contents outline, some kind of bullet or symbol would be nice to indicate different levels and each heading.

</comment><comment><USER37> how about wikipedia allows multiple style sheets and lets us each choose what we like. One size does not fit all.

</comment><comment><USER38> Breaks infoboxes.

</comment><comment> tejas-manohar So clean

</comment><comment><USER39> "minimalist"

</comment><comment><USER40> >_<'</comment>


Ask HN: I own military.info and marines.info – what should i do with them? - <AUTHOR> i want to develop them, but came only up with the idea to create a military news aggregator or directory.
Any other project suggestions ideas?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Among other things that you might do, post "what should I do with this site?" on your two domains, and collect ideas.

Because someone is already going there accidentally, and they probably have some expectation. Possibly there's an expectation that you can fill.

</comment><comment><USER3> You bought them, still haven't came up with any ideas to develop them, so I'd say just Let them expire and forget about them.

</comment><comment><USER4> Redirect them to Amnesty International or Doctors without Borders.</comment>