I recently learned there’s a sleep aid drug which blocks the formation of long-term memories. This is treated as a bug, but with the right framework it could be a feature.

Suppose you had to prove a product worked to a potential client without revealing how a product works. In the modern world, this is accomplished through a complex web of NDA’s, timed disclosures, careful phrasing and trust. Instead, the potential client could take a drug that inhibits memory formation, be shown the complete inner workings of the solution and then presented with a simple form where he can communicate his feelings of the solution to his future self. This portion of the form would have to be viewed by the discloser in order to prevent the disclosee from smuggling out trade secrets. Alternatively, the disclosee could signal his view on the project through a single bit of information.

As a nightmare scenario, the discloser could utilize threats and intimidation to make sure the disclosee checks the right box. To guard against this, the disclosee could have a private key that he puts into a separate field. Maybe “heads” means the disclosee thinks the discloser acted honorably during the meeting. Maybe “heads” means the disclosee thinks the discloser is not trustworthy. Either way, he’s only giving his future self one additional bit of information. For many applications, this won’t be useful.

This could also be used in personal contexts. Give both parties that pill. Confess that affair. Ask that question. Share that fantasy. Afterwards, find out if it was worth the risk.

This idea is probably too weird to be regularly accepted, but I’d like to live in a world where one could visit safe “Memory Hotels” for experiences such as this. Tagline: You forget thousands of things every day. Make sure this is one of them.

Honesty is extolled because you have to pay a price for its benefits. I want the world to be more honest. We should use currently-existing pills to make honesty cheaper.

Boston is lifting regulations requiring parking spaces alongside residential buildings. From the Boston Globe:

In a city where people can spend hours searching for parking, Boston officials are pursuing a strategy that seems as galling as it is counterintuitive: They are deliberately discouraging construction of new spaces.

The policy shift — which comes even as thousands of new residents flock into its neighborhoods — is being implemented across the city, with officials relaxing once inflexible requirements that parking be built with every new residence. The goal is to encourage the use of public transportation, and to devote more land and money to affordable housing, open spaces, and other amenities. Officials also say the city’s youthful population is becoming more accustomed to life without a car.

“We don’t need a parking space for every bedroom in every new building,” Peter Meade, head of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said in a recent interview. He cited US census data showing that one in three Boston residents is between 20 and 35, and most bike, walk, or use public transportation to get to work.

But the reduction in spaces is roiling residents in some of Boston’s densely populated neighborhoods, with critics arguing that officials are allowing high-minded planning principles to trump the needs of residents who wage a daily battle over precious street spots.

[Hat tip: Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution.]

This is an interesting and instructive issue. Here’s an unorganized smattering of thoughts:

1. Many from the liberal cluster will cheer for this deregulation. Many from the conservative cluster will claim the government should force small businesses to provide a public good. Embrace your natural response. This is what it feels like to be on the dark side.
2. We all have many memories of circling tight parking garages, but no one can remember living in a high rise that wasn’t built, so there’s likely a bias making people overvalue parking spaces.
3. Parking is a genuine positive externality, and the market will not provide enough parking for the driving population in most situations.
4. In Houston, where labor is cheap, some midtown restaurants employ teenagers to make sure customers from competing restaurants don’t park in their concrete. This is an expensive way for private actors to internalize a public good. It doesn’t result in a pleasant experience for the patrons, and it doesn’t result in an efficient use of space. Space is also cheap in Houston, so this may not happen elsewhere.
5. Policies that discourage public transportation can make poor people flee a city, which has its benefits. Think of Cartman singing about California.
6. Like in most cases, Google can provide an answer. Driverless cars will make parking concerns obsolete. One day, we’ll all get around by renting robot taxi cabs. That day can’t come soon enough.