Donating forks to the dining hall(ben.page)
ben.page
Donating forks to the dining hall
https://ben.page/forks
230 comments
Reminds of of the replacement of "threeks" at the UW-Madison campus in the 1980s. At the time, it was common for satirical parties to win student elections and do odd things like cover the campus with plastic flamingos. One of the satirical parties was upset that the UW-Madison cafeteria didn't have true forks (with four tines) but only "threeks" (forks with three tines). So they decided to work with friends at Northwestern university outside Chicago to trade their cafeteria's forks for UW's threeks. They were successful, but obviously both UW's and Northwestern's administration weren't pleased and the trade was reversed.
Don’t tell me “fork” and “four” are related.
Did my homework: “Old English forca, force (denoting a farm implement), based on Latin furca ‘pitchfork, forked stick’; reinforced in Middle English by Anglo-Norman French furke (also from Latin furca ).”
Four in Latin is quattuor. Scared me there.
Did my homework: “Old English forca, force (denoting a farm implement), based on Latin furca ‘pitchfork, forked stick’; reinforced in Middle English by Anglo-Norman French furke (also from Latin furca ).”
Four in Latin is quattuor. Scared me there.
However, Latin quattuor and english four are related through the PIE word kʷetwóres, as basically all words for 4 in indoeuropean languages are
I have some Dansk (which is Finnish, because logic is for Vulcans) flatware from the 1970s which instead of having forks has threeks. Still stabs food pretty well.
No. A forked stick does not have 4 branches, nor does a fork in the road.
It definitely is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0CmaLgxLDE0
When I went there in 2012, there was a fee each semester for dining hall silverware that goes missing. They assumed that you'd take $60 worth of silverware and plates.
I’d steal more than $60 worth out of principle
And get your money back by selling for scrap!
Fun fact: replacing copper pipes with PEX during a renovation will often pay for tools and supplies needed for the replacement when the copper is taken for scrap.
Fun fact: replacing copper pipes with PEX during a renovation will often pay for tools and supplies needed for the replacement when the copper is taken for scrap.
Is that fun fact legitimate? I know that you can get a premium for copper (see: tweakers who rip out pipes in open buildings and sell it), but the ratio here seems improbable, at least.
According to copper.orgs fact page, the "average" single family home (whatever that means) has 151 pounds of copper pipe. The current scrap price for #1 copper where I live is $2.88. That comes out to around $446.
That would maybe cover the cost of the pex itself, OR the cost of fittings and tools, but probably not both.
That would maybe cover the cost of the pex itself, OR the cost of fittings and tools, but probably not both.
I'd argue keep the copper in place as much as possible. PEX is plastic. I'm sure it contributes to all the microplastics/PFAS we see all over the place.
this is superstitious nonsense. pex contains no pfas and is the least likely kind of plastic to create microplastics
it's disturbing that people saying things like 'I would bet that running a single load of synthetic clothes in the dryer creates more microplastic than making 1000 cut and crimped connections of PEX tubing.' get flagged to death as if they were spamming penis enlargement pills; that comment was obviously correct
it's disturbing that people saying things like 'I would bet that running a single load of synthetic clothes in the dryer creates more microplastic than making 1000 cut and crimped connections of PEX tubing.' get flagged to death as if they were spamming penis enlargement pills; that comment was obviously correct
I would bet that running a single load of synthetic clothes in the dryer creates more microplastic than making 1000 cut and crimped connections of PEX tubing.
Copper has natural antibacterial properties. I'm loathe to look at the insides of plastic pipe after 30 years :p
superstitious nonsense
Honestly don't know which pipe is worse. I've had to crawl underneath my house 4 times to repair pinholes, but squirrels seem to think pex is made out of some sort of heroin candy. They can't get enough. Sadly, I've never gotten any video of what they think of the relatively high pressure water at the center of this candy... might've be some small consolation.
Why weren't the administrations pleased and why is it obvious? Did they stop the trade completely or truly reverse it afterwards?
Yes, they made the schools reverse the trade. While it was done in a spirit of fun, it was technically a theft of utensils from both schools.
There's a common pattern in population dynamics that I've observed, which probably has a formal name: A given system with (to simplify) two types of behavior: good and bad will tolerate and self correct up to certain percentage of bad actors (call this the jerk threshold, JT) after which all participants switch to the bad behavior. Examples are line formation for a service, cutting people off in traffic, stealing from common areas, hoarding office supplies, etc.
Anecdata: When I travel back to the country I've grown up I resort back to being a jerk in traffic and cutting in lines because you have to.
I've always wondered what the JT for different situations is, before the system breaks down, e.g. what percentage of people in a line have to cut in before everybody abandons the concept of forming the line.
Anecdata: When I travel back to the country I've grown up I resort back to being a jerk in traffic and cutting in lines because you have to.
I've always wondered what the JT for different situations is, before the system breaks down, e.g. what percentage of people in a line have to cut in before everybody abandons the concept of forming the line.
They've actually had to try to make people more of a jerk in the midwest, and instruct them on why the "zipper merge" is NOT bad: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/zippermerge/
Otherwise if there's a sign that says "Left Lane Closed 10 Miles Ahead" everyone will get in the right lane for ten miles.
Otherwise if there's a sign that says "Left Lane Closed 10 Miles Ahead" everyone will get in the right lane for ten miles.
It is plausibly a more efficient usage if both lanes of traffic are moving.
In practice drivers treat the "zipper merge" as acceptable when the left lane is closed ahead, there is 500 ft of road remaining and traffic in the right lane is already dead stopped. It isn't uncommon to see people approaching at 1.5x - 2x the posted speed limit and trying to "merge" then.
In practice drivers treat the "zipper merge" as acceptable when the left lane is closed ahead, there is 500 ft of road remaining and traffic in the right lane is already dead stopped. It isn't uncommon to see people approaching at 1.5x - 2x the posted speed limit and trying to "merge" then.
That is the correct behavior. If only one lane is stopped its far more likely to stretch back and block an exit that does not need to be blocked.
> everyone will get in the right lane for ten miles.
And have 10 miles to get up to speed. As opposed to the zipper merge where everyone waits til the last minute, and everyone has to come to a complete stop.
Supposing of course your observations are true. From what I can tell with the "lane closed in 10 miles", is some asshole invariably sees it as a chance to get ahead of everyone else, zooms through the left lane, almost causes an accident, and then other idiots who think he's being successful in zooming ahead imitate his behavior. You get your "zipper merge" anyway, where everyone has to come to a dead stop at the chokepoint anyway. We're not all one gigantic robotic hivemind, preparing early makes for a smoother experience for all and fewer hostile feelings.
For those who use the shoulder on the interstate who do not have genuine medical emergencies (why didn't you call the ambulance?) I propose that they bring in mobile car crushers. I'm even generous enough to let them exit the vehicle first.
And have 10 miles to get up to speed. As opposed to the zipper merge where everyone waits til the last minute, and everyone has to come to a complete stop.
Supposing of course your observations are true. From what I can tell with the "lane closed in 10 miles", is some asshole invariably sees it as a chance to get ahead of everyone else, zooms through the left lane, almost causes an accident, and then other idiots who think he's being successful in zooming ahead imitate his behavior. You get your "zipper merge" anyway, where everyone has to come to a dead stop at the chokepoint anyway. We're not all one gigantic robotic hivemind, preparing early makes for a smoother experience for all and fewer hostile feelings.
For those who use the shoulder on the interstate who do not have genuine medical emergencies (why didn't you call the ambulance?) I propose that they bring in mobile car crushers. I'm even generous enough to let them exit the vehicle first.
In my experience there is no full stop if zipper merge is done right, but lots of angry people and a an inefficient use of the road leading to traffic jam miles before the merge needs to happen if people try to get into the one lane early.
If people all zip merge, there is no zooming possible on the closed lane and both lanes that merge get down to around 20mph at the choke point.
This only works in countries with civilized traffic participants as mentioned by OP. I have personally only seen 2 countries out of maybe 30 where that was the case. In cars many people behave like animals for some reason
If people all zip merge, there is no zooming possible on the closed lane and both lanes that merge get down to around 20mph at the choke point.
This only works in countries with civilized traffic participants as mentioned by OP. I have personally only seen 2 countries out of maybe 30 where that was the case. In cars many people behave like animals for some reason
Even odder when it comes to behavior, in my experience people in my current city routinely fail at navigating a zipper merge without significantly reducing their speed, even coming to a full stop.
But when it comes to freeway on ramps, even in busy interchanges, there s usually no issues, which is odd because they are more or less the same maneuver.
There must be some psychological factors at play.
But when it comes to freeway on ramps, even in busy interchanges, there s usually no issues, which is odd because they are more or less the same maneuver.
There must be some psychological factors at play.
So that sounds like a massive flaw in traffic management design.
It's more efficient to develop traffic rules that work in how people are not how they should ideally be.
It's more efficient to develop traffic rules that work in how people are not how they should ideally be.
Brawndo! it's what plants crave.
Where do you draw the line though when catering to the uniformed? There is a reason we hire SME's.
Where do you draw the line though when catering to the uniformed? There is a reason we hire SME's.
You design systems for the way nature works not how you wish nature worked ideally.
And you think nature made drivers in some countries behave different to drivers in other countries?
Technically yes. Humans are biological creatures.
Nature? we are talking about car infra here right?
I understand that my argument will lead to the inevitable 'well if everyone one followed all the rules all the time' type response, but there if people are leaving the appropriate following distance with perhaps a bit extra at the as they approach the zipper merge, than there is no reason the merge cannot take place at near highway speeds, certainly with no need to stop.
Its no different than how a freeway entry works.
Its no different than how a freeway entry works.
I can't prove it, but I suspect (strongly) that whichever method you believe to be the correct one, following distances must shorten dramatically, or speeds must drop so low as to threaten traffic jams (which, perversely, leave everyone bumper to bumper). It's all about how many cars are trying to use that stretch of road for a period of time, and if all are to fit through within that window, there is both a minimum speed and a maximum following distance. Wish I wasn't a math flunky.
I think most people are just unaware of how much distance is required between to cars at highway speeds to considered safe. A proper buffer would leave lots of room to absorb the extra cars and loss of speed. That the point, its flexible and elastic.
> if people are leaving the appropriate following distance
The general rule is, no, they are not. Unfortunately there is really no penalty in the US if you're following to close unless you get in an accident. I quite often drive on I-35 and so often it's in conditions I call a fast moving traffic jam. People are traveling nearly 80MPH with 2 car distances between each other. Quite often this turns into multi car pileups because someone has to emergency break.
The general rule is, no, they are not. Unfortunately there is really no penalty in the US if you're following to close unless you get in an accident. I quite often drive on I-35 and so often it's in conditions I call a fast moving traffic jam. People are traveling nearly 80MPH with 2 car distances between each other. Quite often this turns into multi car pileups because someone has to emergency break.
Arguably, unless traffic is free-flowing at maximum speed, doing the zipper merge is in fact the non-jerk option.
ugh tell that to the idiots who give me the finger for zipper merging in Columbus, OH
Probably should prioritize telling them that red lights mean stop and that the arrow on the one-way sign points in the only direction you're allowed to go. Maybe mention turn signals too.
Allegedly there are three cities with worse drivers, but I find that highly implausible
Allegedly there are three cities with worse drivers, but I find that highly implausible
What's the legal situation?
Where I live in the EU merging lanes demands a zipper merge according to law.
Varies from state to state since traffic laws are per-state in the US, but in most states the traffic merging is supposed to yield to the traffic staying in their lane.
You also are supposed to maintain a "safe distance" (where the law might be literally "safe distance" or might give a specific units) which at freeway speeds would mean leaving enough room for zippers but I don't know anyone who has ever been cited for following too closely, except after an accident caused by following too closely.
You also are supposed to maintain a "safe distance" (where the law might be literally "safe distance" or might give a specific units) which at freeway speeds would mean leaving enough room for zippers but I don't know anyone who has ever been cited for following too closely, except after an accident caused by following too closely.
There are signs posted explaining that zipper is the correct way to go, but I still get run off the road for doing it when merging onto the outer belt in this city
Well if you're forcing them to break when you merge then that kind of requires a finger imo.
Regardless Columbus has a great lack of turn signals and understanding of basic intersection rules.
Regardless Columbus has a great lack of turn signals and understanding of basic intersection rules.
You're not forced to brake if you can see that 2 lanes go down to 1 and you therefore anticipate that the cars in the other lane are going to have to merge into your lane and you leave a gap to allow them to do so.
If there is an appropriate gap it is fine. However in my experience many people in the zipper lane merge without regard to what the traffic in the lane they're merging into is doing. Thus forcing people to slam on breaks and slows down the overall flow of traffic.
If you don't leave a gap then you're forcing the people in the other lane to slow down and disrupt the flow of traffic.
It is a mistake to think that one of the two input lanes is more entitled to the output lane than the other. 2 lanes go down to 1, neither is more privileged than the other, cars should merge in turn.
It is a mistake to think that one of the two input lanes is more entitled to the output lane than the other. 2 lanes go down to 1, neither is more privileged than the other, cars should merge in turn.
If there isn't a gap then don't force a merge. Otherwise you're the one driving unsafely and causing further traffic congestion.
Your comment makes less sense when the merging lane has no one else it as well. That means the car in it that is merging over has plenty of opportunities to merge safely without causing traffic congestion however they don't.
Your comment makes less sense when the merging lane has no one else it as well. That means the car in it that is merging over has plenty of opportunities to merge safely without causing traffic congestion however they don't.
If there’s not an appropriate gap then you are also at fault. You should always have an appropriate gap between you and the car in front of you.
> if you're forcing them to break when you merge then that kind of requires a finger
i do my best to avoid forcing anyone to brake, ever
usually the people flipping me off are speeding ahead of me from the other lane as soon as they see my signal go on
i do my best to avoid forcing anyone to brake, ever
usually the people flipping me off are speeding ahead of me from the other lane as soon as they see my signal go on
Oh, so you end up with space to merge easily then if they're speeding up.
it really depends on where they are in relation to me and if people are following them closely
when they see my signal they are behind me so making it much more difficult to merge cleanly - i can either hop over as soon as i signal (not safe) or brake so i can merge behind them, where if they hadn't sped up i'd just move over naturally in the flow of traffic
it really feels to me like your comments are meant to needle my complaint re: folks not understanding the zipper merge, am i misreading you? do you think the zipper merge should not be used?
when they see my signal they are behind me so making it much more difficult to merge cleanly - i can either hop over as soon as i signal (not safe) or brake so i can merge behind them, where if they hadn't sped up i'd just move over naturally in the flow of traffic
it really feels to me like your comments are meant to needle my complaint re: folks not understanding the zipper merge, am i misreading you? do you think the zipper merge should not be used?
"brake so i can merge behind them"
This is how you're supposed to merge. When you get on the freeway you don't expect the current flow of traffic to accommodate for you, instead you accommodate for them.
"it really feels to me like your comments are meant to needle my complaint re: folks not understanding the zipper merge, am i misreading you? do you think the zipper merge should not be used?"
I am not sure you're understanding how it's supposed to work... People in the flowing lane aren't meant to stop or slow down to let you over.
The zipper action is meant when it's backed up. The zipper lane isn't designed for you to disrupt the current flow of traffic.
Edit: here's a video, maybe it will help you understand better
https://youtu.be/I2Rd8z_VHpE?si=C4nmWqQpL7aaydQI
This is how you're supposed to merge. When you get on the freeway you don't expect the current flow of traffic to accommodate for you, instead you accommodate for them.
"it really feels to me like your comments are meant to needle my complaint re: folks not understanding the zipper merge, am i misreading you? do you think the zipper merge should not be used?"
I am not sure you're understanding how it's supposed to work... People in the flowing lane aren't meant to stop or slow down to let you over.
The zipper action is meant when it's backed up. The zipper lane isn't designed for you to disrupt the current flow of traffic.
Edit: here's a video, maybe it will help you understand better
https://youtu.be/I2Rd8z_VHpE?si=C4nmWqQpL7aaydQI
If someone speeds up when they see a car in another lane signalling that they are going to merge, in order to prevent that car from safely merging, when the merge would have been safe to perform had they not sped up to prevent it, they are definitely driving incorrectly.
If a car does that then it's not safe to merge until after they've gotten ahead of you.
Exactly, which is what I said in my earlier comment that you seem to have misunderstood.
You are misunderstanding. Please re-read what I've written so far. At no point did I suggest what you are saying.
> This is how you're supposed to merge. When you get on the freeway you don't expect the current flow of traffic to accommodate for you, instead you accommodate for them.
Specifically, you should read the rest of the line you are replying to here.
I mentioned people behind me speeding up to make it impossible for me to merge without braking, after I signal. At no point did I say they should "stop" or "slow down".
I was pointing out that people deliberately speeding up to make it harder to merge without braking are causing problems. It was a light-hearted comment about the failure of many drivers in my town to properly zipper merge.
Here is a video demonstration of zipper merge to help you better understand appropriate driving behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX0I8OdK7Tk
> This is how you're supposed to merge. When you get on the freeway you don't expect the current flow of traffic to accommodate for you, instead you accommodate for them.
Specifically, you should read the rest of the line you are replying to here.
I mentioned people behind me speeding up to make it impossible for me to merge without braking, after I signal. At no point did I say they should "stop" or "slow down".
I was pointing out that people deliberately speeding up to make it harder to merge without braking are causing problems. It was a light-hearted comment about the failure of many drivers in my town to properly zipper merge.
Here is a video demonstration of zipper merge to help you better understand appropriate driving behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX0I8OdK7Tk
Contrast that with Oregon, where everyone will stay in both lanes until one car length short of ten miles.
This is a pet peeve of mine, but also isn't it the most practical? Don't we want the lanes consumed as much as possible so traffic disruptions aren't distributed further back down the road?
Yes and no. If consuming the lanes as much as possible was the goal, we’d be parked bumper to bumper with no available space to move at all.
We want the throughput of the road to be as high as possible. Broadly, that means maintaining the optimal (minimum) spacing to make the merge safely without changing speed, while maximizing speed.
You may get larger areas where speeds are disrupted, but on the average be going faster. Stop-and-go traffic introduces tons of inefficiencies since drivers need to be much more cautious than in a consistent traffic flow.
The big challenge is that it’s basically impossible to know what the optimal speed is, since it relies on knowing the detailed state of the road and traffic volume miles ahead of what you can see.
Self-driving cars are interesting here since they will open up new opportunities for all the vehicles on the road to co-regulate their speed near to the optimum.
We want the throughput of the road to be as high as possible. Broadly, that means maintaining the optimal (minimum) spacing to make the merge safely without changing speed, while maximizing speed.
You may get larger areas where speeds are disrupted, but on the average be going faster. Stop-and-go traffic introduces tons of inefficiencies since drivers need to be much more cautious than in a consistent traffic flow.
The big challenge is that it’s basically impossible to know what the optimal speed is, since it relies on knowing the detailed state of the road and traffic volume miles ahead of what you can see.
Self-driving cars are interesting here since they will open up new opportunities for all the vehicles on the road to co-regulate their speed near to the optimum.
Growing up learning to drive on the East Coast, my intuition finds a sweet spot between the two, typically merging while moving slowly when there is a natural gap between cars.
What I tend to see instead is hard braking ripple back down the line to a half-dozen cars or more for each car trying to merge right at the end because suddenly there are two cars right next to each other and one lane of car width left. Every time it appears that the lane-ending driver is like "oh wow, my lane went away!"
What I tend to see instead is hard braking ripple back down the line to a half-dozen cars or more for each car trying to merge right at the end because suddenly there are two cars right next to each other and one lane of car width left. Every time it appears that the lane-ending driver is like "oh wow, my lane went away!"
Why look around and anticipate the movements of others when you can finish your tweet and jab the brakes on everyone's day behind you?
Duh.
Duh.
Basically, you want both lanes to effectively spread out to where those in one could be placed in the other without overlapping vehicles.
The goal is to have both lanes move slowly, but constantly. To basically have a "1 and 1" progression through the chokepoint: 1 from the left, 1 from the right.
It is a rough balance because you have those who don't want to let others merge at all. And there are those who want to merge at all costs. Both of which violate the "1 and 1" guideline which gives everyone at least the illusion of progress.
The goal is to have both lanes move slowly, but constantly. To basically have a "1 and 1" progression through the chokepoint: 1 from the left, 1 from the right.
It is a rough balance because you have those who don't want to let others merge at all. And there are those who want to merge at all costs. Both of which violate the "1 and 1" guideline which gives everyone at least the illusion of progress.
For years, I thought early merging was the morally correct choice, until a friend in my car yelled at me for doing it. He was a very conscientious person, but he was also a bus driver in the city (and thus much better trained in driving through congested areas). I think it's just a matter of education.
Another way to think of it: if you merge early, then the actual correct time to merge becomes indeterminate. Do you merge when you see the sign? Wait till you see a good gap? What if the person behind you doesn't have a gap, and they drive right past to keep looking? It becomes chaotic, and everyone thinks they are getting picked on when someone decides to merge in front of them or passes them. So much wasted anxiety and anger. It's a lot easier (in congestion) to wait until you need to merge, then merge.
In free-flowing traffic, it's a bit different, but the Minnesota page on zipper merging acknowledges that at the end of the article.
Another way to think of it: if you merge early, then the actual correct time to merge becomes indeterminate. Do you merge when you see the sign? Wait till you see a good gap? What if the person behind you doesn't have a gap, and they drive right past to keep looking? It becomes chaotic, and everyone thinks they are getting picked on when someone decides to merge in front of them or passes them. So much wasted anxiety and anger. It's a lot easier (in congestion) to wait until you need to merge, then merge.
In free-flowing traffic, it's a bit different, but the Minnesota page on zipper merging acknowledges that at the end of the article.
> I thought early merging was the morally correct choice
I never thought of it as a moral thing, but I merge as early as possible (ideally, I set myself up in the lane I need for the entire trip and avoid merging at all) simply because it's the safest thing to do.
When I don't do this, I will either miss the exit I want, or I'll get stuck at a standstill waiting for the rare kind soul in the lane next to me to let me in.
I never thought of it as a moral thing, but I merge as early as possible (ideally, I set myself up in the lane I need for the entire trip and avoid merging at all) simply because it's the safest thing to do.
When I don't do this, I will either miss the exit I want, or I'll get stuck at a standstill waiting for the rare kind soul in the lane next to me to let me in.
> Otherwise if there's a sign that says "Left Lane Closed 10 Miles Ahead" everyone will get in the right lane for ten miles.
One reason for this is that it only takes one person "policing" from the right lane (i.e. driving down the middle of the road, or worse: swerving out in front of the left lane) to shut down zipper merging.
One reason for this is that it only takes one person "policing" from the right lane (i.e. driving down the middle of the road, or worse: swerving out in front of the left lane) to shut down zipper merging.
The thing that really bothers me about this is that the Jerk Threshold pushes the Overton window on Jerkiness - now if you're not participating in Jerk behavior you're disrupting "The way things work" which on its own might be jerk behavior.
I grew up and live in Oregon. I've generally thought of our drivers as relatively non-aggressive. But I've seen Californians† who are aggressively merging and weaving (And if you've ever driven down in LA, you know the lay of the land). Then the Oregonians who follow suit, and then everyone is doing it.
†Oregonians have been complaining about Californians since time immemorial. It's just pure tribalism. We blame any negative change on our state as "Californians moving in". My apologies to Californians for unfairly dished blame.
I grew up and live in Oregon. I've generally thought of our drivers as relatively non-aggressive. But I've seen Californians† who are aggressively merging and weaving (And if you've ever driven down in LA, you know the lay of the land). Then the Oregonians who follow suit, and then everyone is doing it.
†Oregonians have been complaining about Californians since time immemorial. It's just pure tribalism. We blame any negative change on our state as "Californians moving in". My apologies to Californians for unfairly dished blame.
The population of California drivers seems to have this weird bimodality of weaving lanes or never changing lanes at all; the other annoying "California Driver" thing is "If you are going slower than I want, how dare you believe that I might move left one lane to pass you. I'll only do that after tailgating you for a few minutes and then flipping you off"
Even when going 65 in the right lane I've seen this happen.
The other thing that seems more specific to SoCal that pisses me off is: "35MPH is a perfectly reasonable speed to merge onto the freeway at. Not just on short ramps, but on ramps that are 1/4 a mile downhill where even a Geo Metro could hit 55. Yes I'm going to go 80MPH eventually, but not until a half mile after merging."
Even when going 65 in the right lane I've seen this happen.
The other thing that seems more specific to SoCal that pisses me off is: "35MPH is a perfectly reasonable speed to merge onto the freeway at. Not just on short ramps, but on ramps that are 1/4 a mile downhill where even a Geo Metro could hit 55. Yes I'm going to go 80MPH eventually, but not until a half mile after merging."
Speaking of population dynamics, I enjoyed the "Parable of the Polygons"[1]. It shows with simple simulations an example of individual biases being different from collective biases. This difference leads to different collective behavior depending on environmental conditions. Similar to your example of individuals having a certain "jerk"ness, but the collective can pass a "jerk" threshold, which leads to an increase in jerk behavior.
[1]: https://ncase.me/polygons/
[1]: https://ncase.me/polygons/
> after which all participants switch to the bad behavior
This is how it has become with job applications. So many people started lying on resumes that the job reqs starting raising the requirements for a position, which causes more people to need to lie. If you don't lie, you just don't get a job and starve/die.
This is how it has become with job applications. So many people started lying on resumes that the job reqs starting raising the requirements for a position, which causes more people to need to lie. If you don't lie, you just don't get a job and starve/die.
The Jerk Threshold is particularly low in low-trust, low-verifiability, usually-not-iterated games, and there's almost no setting that fits those conditions more than a job search.
Good point. I think the difference is that the society as a whole was much higher-trust than it is today. America is back to being the Wild West, take what you can and don’t look back.
The opposite can happen too. Scott Alexander's old post "In favour of niceness, community and civilisation" quotes an Atlantic article [1] for an example of a model where all of a country's officials can flip from mostly-corrupt to honest at short notice, once corruption falls below a threshold. A lot of other threshold situations like the one you described feature in that article too - including, sadly, a "Rwanda" model for how when inter-group animosity crosses a threshold you can end up with genocide.
As far as I can tell, the formal name is "population dynamics".
[1] https://archive.is/BXq66
As far as I can tell, the formal name is "population dynamics".
[1] https://archive.is/BXq66
See also: 'broken windows theory': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
Though this concept isn't as pat and reliable as in its most-simplistic formulations – you can't fix all crime with aesthetic enforcement – it captures real human tendencies to 'flock' in the space of norms-of-behavior, using visible cues of what will or won't be tolerated. And, it has applicability outside of just literal 'policing'.
Keeping spaces/communities far from any chaotic boundary where people start to wonder - "what can I get away with? does anyone confront/correct problems?" - can save a lot on overall defection/enforcement losses in the long run.
Though this concept isn't as pat and reliable as in its most-simplistic formulations – you can't fix all crime with aesthetic enforcement – it captures real human tendencies to 'flock' in the space of norms-of-behavior, using visible cues of what will or won't be tolerated. And, it has applicability outside of just literal 'policing'.
Keeping spaces/communities far from any chaotic boundary where people start to wonder - "what can I get away with? does anyone confront/correct problems?" - can save a lot on overall defection/enforcement losses in the long run.
Yeah, I think Broken Windows Theory takes it a step too far. I believe that if you have an area without graffiti and broken windows, fewer people will graffiti on walls and break windows, but the evidence for that preventing violent crime is flimsy at best.
It feels like this is happening in US politics, and has been for some time. I'm in the US so I can only speak to it, but perhaps the world over?
How you drive displays your true personality.
You can think of the Jerk Threshold problem as one of a prisoner's dilemma with a (sufficiently large) extra term, which you can think of as some combination of personal guilt, societal punishment, and whatever positive prosocial instincts humans have.
In the classic prisoner's dilemma, your payoff is +3 if you defect and the other prisoner doesn't, +2 if neither of you defects, +1 if both of you defect, and 0 if you don't defect and they do. There's no Jerk Threshold in this problem - regardless of your opponent's behavior, in isolation, you are always better off defecting.
But let's add the extra Antijerk Term - call it A - that you pay to defect. This could be you feeling bad about defecting, or it could represent the chance that you face retaliation for defecting later, whatever - there's some slight cost to being a jerk. We can see how the Jerk Threshold changes.
Your payoff matrix is now [[2, 3-A], [0, 1-A]]. If your opponent has a probability p of defecting, you can compute:
E[cooperate] = p * 0 + (1-p) * 2 = 2 - 2p, with the former term corresponding to you getting screwed and the latter corresponding to cooperation.
E[defect] = p * (1-A) + (1-p) * (3-A) = 3 - 2p - A, with the former term corresponding to the defect-defect state and the latter one being you screwing them.
For A < 1, 2 - 2p < 3 - 2p - A, so you're still in a prisoner's dilemma. But for A > 1, the problem abruptly shifts into a cooperation game, because 2 - 2p > 3 - 2p - A for A > 1.
-----
In this case, the Jerk Threshold abruptly shifts from 0 to 1 (that is, nothing could make you cooperate -> nothing could make you defect). But in the real world, the A term varies depending on context. The A term with a friend is very high, because you have a lot of opportunity for retaliation and they'll feel especially bad screwing you over. The A term with a stranger you're somewhat hostile to is low (maybe even negative). And A varies from actor to actor - some of us have stronger consciences than others. So you end up with bubbles where there's a stable local equilibrium (because the A values are high internally and that maintains stable cooperate-cooperate equilibria) despite differences with the outside world.
Properly modeling this probably looks something like the Ising model [1] on some complicated social graph. Which explains why we see these kinds of phase transitions - most real graphs are dense enough to have them. The bubbles we just described correspond to magnetic domains, and the incentives not to cooperate while in contact with a defect-bubble (or vice-versa) correspond to the high potential energy of domain walls.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model
In the classic prisoner's dilemma, your payoff is +3 if you defect and the other prisoner doesn't, +2 if neither of you defects, +1 if both of you defect, and 0 if you don't defect and they do. There's no Jerk Threshold in this problem - regardless of your opponent's behavior, in isolation, you are always better off defecting.
But let's add the extra Antijerk Term - call it A - that you pay to defect. This could be you feeling bad about defecting, or it could represent the chance that you face retaliation for defecting later, whatever - there's some slight cost to being a jerk. We can see how the Jerk Threshold changes.
Your payoff matrix is now [[2, 3-A], [0, 1-A]]. If your opponent has a probability p of defecting, you can compute:
E[cooperate] = p * 0 + (1-p) * 2 = 2 - 2p, with the former term corresponding to you getting screwed and the latter corresponding to cooperation.
E[defect] = p * (1-A) + (1-p) * (3-A) = 3 - 2p - A, with the former term corresponding to the defect-defect state and the latter one being you screwing them.
For A < 1, 2 - 2p < 3 - 2p - A, so you're still in a prisoner's dilemma. But for A > 1, the problem abruptly shifts into a cooperation game, because 2 - 2p > 3 - 2p - A for A > 1.
-----
In this case, the Jerk Threshold abruptly shifts from 0 to 1 (that is, nothing could make you cooperate -> nothing could make you defect). But in the real world, the A term varies depending on context. The A term with a friend is very high, because you have a lot of opportunity for retaliation and they'll feel especially bad screwing you over. The A term with a stranger you're somewhat hostile to is low (maybe even negative). And A varies from actor to actor - some of us have stronger consciences than others. So you end up with bubbles where there's a stable local equilibrium (because the A values are high internally and that maintains stable cooperate-cooperate equilibria) despite differences with the outside world.
Properly modeling this probably looks something like the Ising model [1] on some complicated social graph. Which explains why we see these kinds of phase transitions - most real graphs are dense enough to have them. The bubbles we just described correspond to magnetic domains, and the incentives not to cooperate while in contact with a defect-bubble (or vice-versa) correspond to the high potential energy of domain walls.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model
I love this spirit.
In the office where I work, the main door locks whenever it closes, so the first person to arrive each morning props the door open for everyone else. Well, a new tenant moved in to one of the other units, and they started taking our doorstop. Morning after morning we had to go find it and retrieve it, for weeks! One day it occurred to me that I didn't have to complain to management, or get maintenance to deal with it, I could just buy a bunch of doorstops. The hallway is now liberally strewn with them, more doorstops than there are doors, and we haven't had to retrieve ours since.
In the office where I work, the main door locks whenever it closes, so the first person to arrive each morning props the door open for everyone else. Well, a new tenant moved in to one of the other units, and they started taking our doorstop. Morning after morning we had to go find it and retrieve it, for weeks! One day it occurred to me that I didn't have to complain to management, or get maintenance to deal with it, I could just buy a bunch of doorstops. The hallway is now liberally strewn with them, more doorstops than there are doors, and we haven't had to retrieve ours since.
Yup. Similarly, if staplers and scissors always disappear from office cabinets, it's often because people know they disappear so they hold onto them to have them available. It's a self-reinforcing system.
But if one buys a bunch of them, people start trusting that they will be available, and will hoard less!
But if one buys a bunch of them, people start trusting that they will be available, and will hoard less!
I thought the solution to the tragedy of the commons was institutions: we need a 1000-year old socially-enforced tradition of shunning hoarders and assigning dishwasher duty.
Your solution sounds easier, though.
Your solution sounds easier, though.
In a closed system, you could grow the commons until there's no scarcity anymore, and thus no tragedy either. This stops working once some "entrepreneur" figures your commons is their arbitrage opportunity, and opens the system to the outside world.
Ooh, you could start "forkr.com", a just-in-time peer-to-peer fork leasing service!
I'm taking this disgusting train to it's logical conclusion. Seeking VC to start my "mouthsharing" company, where you can hire someone to pre-chew your food up for you, like a baby bird.
You're forgetting an NFT for all my finance bro friends to pump and dump
See, I like the peer-to-peer idea, but if you're going to be centralized anyway (via the service), why not have your own sourcing resources as well? Team up with waymo or whatever self-driving taxi services are around, rent out a small chunk of the trunk to store a good selection of cutlery and consumables (teabags, salt and pepper, sriracha packets, etc. etc.).
> In a closed system, you could grow the commons until there's no scarcity anymore
I don't know what your definition of "closed system" is, but I can assure you the only way the dining hall gets more forks is if they enter the system from outside. Unless it's a dining hall at a fork factory :)
I don't know what your definition of "closed system" is, but I can assure you the only way the dining hall gets more forks is if they enter the system from outside. Unless it's a dining hall at a fork factory :)
It works if you can afford it, and avoid a runaway moral hazard. Pretty soon you will have tractor trailers filling up with staplers
Many doors have a toggle on the face plate below or above the latch that changes auto lock behavior. But auto lock is good for security.
I once had a friend move out of a place in part because he would often get locked out. I showed him how to change this at his move out party.
I once had a friend move out of a place in part because he would often get locked out. I showed him how to change this at his move out party.
> auto lock is good for security
Exactly... in the company where I work, propping open the door (maybe not so much the door to the building, but certainly the doors to our office) would be a sure way to get you into pretty serious trouble. Also, opening the door with your own access card for other people (although I occasionally do that for people I know).
Exactly... in the company where I work, propping open the door (maybe not so much the door to the building, but certainly the doors to our office) would be a sure way to get you into pretty serious trouble. Also, opening the door with your own access card for other people (although I occasionally do that for people I know).
Well, yes. Security tends to be opposed to everything that's good and nice about life. Sometimes it's worth it.
Sometimes that opposition is the reason there's good and nice things at all, though.
I would not normally expect to get away with it, but our security folks don't care; you can't get onto our floor without a badge or PIN, and we are a young enough startup that everyone still recognizes each other. The managers of the coworking space do not care what we do with the office suite we rent from them, and building security does not care what the coworking space does with its interior doors so long as the fire doors stay shut. The security folks at the head office of the coworking chain might care, as they're the ones operating the PIN lock we are bypassing, but they're not here to express an opinion.
Meanwhile, the phone rooms, bathrooms, printer, and most of the conference rooms are located outside our suite in the coworking space, so we'd all be punching in our eight-digit PINs half a dozen times a day getting back into our office if we didn't prop its door open.
Meanwhile, the phone rooms, bathrooms, printer, and most of the conference rooms are located outside our suite in the coworking space, so we'd all be punching in our eight-digit PINs half a dozen times a day getting back into our office if we didn't prop its door open.
>Exactly... in the company where I work, propping open the door (maybe not so much the door to the building, but certainly the doors to our office) would be a sure way to get you into pretty serious trouble.
If it is a fire door then it can also be a fire code violation.
If it is a fire door then it can also be a fire code violation.
Many new doors in Britain have self-closing mechanisms - for instance, you can see photographs on the government guidance[1] for the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022. The door naturally closes shut with a spring-loaded lever (figure 4) or chain (figure 5), but can be kept open with an electromagnet (figure 6). In case of fire, the power to all electromagnets in the building is cut so that the doors can close of their own accord.
Hopefully we can see more widespread use of these in domestic properties, where fires are still horrifically common[2] - well over 3/4 of all fire-related fatalities are in the home.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-engla...
[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fire-and-rescue-inc...
Hopefully we can see more widespread use of these in domestic properties, where fires are still horrifically common[2] - well over 3/4 of all fire-related fatalities are in the home.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-engla...
[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fire-and-rescue-inc...
How thoughtful of you.
Haha, I would have told him ahead of time, but only learned of the reason at the party, after he had packed up his apartment and signed a new lease.
I lived in a building where after a security event all the electromagnetic door holders for some reason were disabled and all the doors defaulted to closed. One of the other people who lived there decided that opening the doors (not locked, by the way, just closed) was too annoying and cut up a 2x4 into a bunch of doorstops.
I had to remove the door stops that kept being put into the secure entrance ways as well as actual fire doors required (normally open but magnetically released when fire alarm goes off) to keep to fire code. The guy making doorstops was angry with me (I didn't hide my removing the doorstops) until I explained that we'd had multiple cases of people wandering off the streets stealing mail and one guy actually took a fire extinguisher and sprayed the lobby, damaging cars in the parking level, and that keeping a fire door propped open and unable to close in the case of fire could potentially kill someone as well as open him up to liability.
If he wanted to keep the doors open as they were previously he needed to take it up with the building and get the electromagnetic door holders reset.
I had to remove the door stops that kept being put into the secure entrance ways as well as actual fire doors required (normally open but magnetically released when fire alarm goes off) to keep to fire code. The guy making doorstops was angry with me (I didn't hide my removing the doorstops) until I explained that we'd had multiple cases of people wandering off the streets stealing mail and one guy actually took a fire extinguisher and sprayed the lobby, damaging cars in the parking level, and that keeping a fire door propped open and unable to close in the case of fire could potentially kill someone as well as open him up to liability.
If he wanted to keep the doors open as they were previously he needed to take it up with the building and get the electromagnetic door holders reset.
It sounds like they're taking the door stop because they want the security features of the building to actually function and the other tenants are actively conprimising them
I do this all the time just for common tools around the house. The easy solution to never being able to find a screwdriver is... going to harbor freight and buying a half-dozen screwdrivers and staging them in areas where you commonly use them. Then you just try not to drag them around the house too much.
I do this with utility knives, flashlights, screwdrivers, etc. The $10 of "waste" from buying a couple extra screwdrivers is hugely outweighed by the convenience of "saturation".
I do this with utility knives, flashlights, screwdrivers, etc. The $10 of "waste" from buying a couple extra screwdrivers is hugely outweighed by the convenience of "saturation".
We live near an amazing restaurant with a huge sand pit. The only downside is the toys are always broken. So my aunt just goes to the dollar store and buys a bag of similar beach toys and leaves them there. They cost practically nothing!
I don't understand, they would take it into their office?
Yes, exactly. Presumably they still do, but we no longer care.
I know this is beside the point, but did you try asking them to stop doing that?
I think it is not beside the point, but opposite to the point.
In a zero-sum game, it must be all against all. But sometimes it takes only one player to change the nature of the game. And sometimes driving that change is less effort than fighting under the old rules.
In a zero-sum game, it must be all against all. But sometimes it takes only one player to change the nature of the game. And sometimes driving that change is less effort than fighting under the old rules.
Imagine how nice it would be the other way around
When management realizes they don't need to complain that the work doesn't get done, they just do the work themselves
When management realizes they don't need to complain that the work doesn't get done, they just do the work themselves
Please tell me you did not work at Uvalde Elementary School.
For the record, I think this comment was fucking excellent!
This could have been a follow-up to "The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322240/
Seems that the easiest solution to mentioned office problems would be to have a common plastic teaspoon printer.
Instead of badging in, you have to spoon in.
My first teaching job was at an old, prestigious boys' boarding school in Australia. (When I say old, it was old for Australia.) Every boy, whether a boarder or day-boy, and every staff member received a hot lunch in the dining halls each day. There were two dining halls: most of the boys at in the less ornate one, but the oldest boys and the staff ate in the more formal dining hall. Portraits of all the previous headmasters gazed down on us as we ate, except for the headmaster who had been sacked after less than a year for having affairs with a few too many boys' mothers.
I was teaching a topic on ecology, which required taking the class out into the school grounds to count the number and diversity of species in an ecosystem. The school grounds were extensive; there were about two dozen playing fields, a small farm for teaching Agriculture (which is an actual, examined subject in some Australian secondary schools), and a lot of bushland.
In search of a suitable spot for the lesson, I headed off down one of the paths through the bush that went to the various boarding houses, and soon found a peculiar tree. It had few branches, and few leaves, but an enormous trunk: it was old and close to death. What made it peculiar, however, was the hundreds of knives sticking out of it - clearly pilfered from the dining halls and thrown by bored schoolboys.
When I returned to the science department, I told my colleagues what I had discovered. One of them was an old boy of the school, and another lived in one of the boarding houses, and yet none of them had any idea about the knife tree.
I was teaching a topic on ecology, which required taking the class out into the school grounds to count the number and diversity of species in an ecosystem. The school grounds were extensive; there were about two dozen playing fields, a small farm for teaching Agriculture (which is an actual, examined subject in some Australian secondary schools), and a lot of bushland.
In search of a suitable spot for the lesson, I headed off down one of the paths through the bush that went to the various boarding houses, and soon found a peculiar tree. It had few branches, and few leaves, but an enormous trunk: it was old and close to death. What made it peculiar, however, was the hundreds of knives sticking out of it - clearly pilfered from the dining halls and thrown by bored schoolboys.
When I returned to the science department, I told my colleagues what I had discovered. One of them was an old boy of the school, and another lived in one of the boarding houses, and yet none of them had any idea about the knife tree.
You call it old, but this sounds like quality secondary education far above almost everything available today, at least here across Western Europe, which is 99.9% read book, then do test. The fact that you teached ecology using actual plants and the outside amazes me, even though it shouldn't and should just be the norm.
The "knife tree", the unholy offspring of The Shrike and the Tree of Pain in Dan Simmons' "Hyperion"...
Kings? I always wanted to explore those extensive grounds when ever drove along Pennant Hills Road. Unfortunately i was a poor.
I like your writing
My partner and I donated cutlery to our Apt complex multipurpose media room. It's where people who live there can watch movies on a projector or have meetings or birthdays.
We bought over 50 teaspoons. I think we're down to 5. We got 10-15 each of knives forks and spoons and they were predated, but not as much.
The body corporate tut-tutted and said they wouldn't do it, I think it's ok to accept some people just wind up pilfering these things, and you deal with it. If you need flatware that badly, I don't mind.
Its 4-5 years in, we probably need to recommit. I don't know I'd go to the bother of etching or stamping anything.
My sister and I fought over who got the NAAFI (british army PX) fork with a hole in the handle. The hole was for a chain, which clearly somebody broke, to steal the fork, which wound up in our cutlery drawer at home in the 50s/60s.
We bought over 50 teaspoons. I think we're down to 5. We got 10-15 each of knives forks and spoons and they were predated, but not as much.
The body corporate tut-tutted and said they wouldn't do it, I think it's ok to accept some people just wind up pilfering these things, and you deal with it. If you need flatware that badly, I don't mind.
Its 4-5 years in, we probably need to recommit. I don't know I'd go to the bother of etching or stamping anything.
My sister and I fought over who got the NAAFI (british army PX) fork with a hole in the handle. The hole was for a chain, which clearly somebody broke, to steal the fork, which wound up in our cutlery drawer at home in the 50s/60s.
If you care (which it sounds like, quite reasonably to me, you don't really), use pliers to bend over just the very end of the handle or put 180 twist in the handle. Very obvious and maybe unappealing to the sticky-fingered, without too much degradation to the immediate function of the object. And for teaspoons bought by the score, which i assume are stamped metal, the handle is probably thin enough to make it easy.
Though at attrition rates of under 10 per year, it could also be partly careless disposal leading to spoons in the bin rather than only deliberate pocketings of 30p teaspoons!
Though at attrition rates of under 10 per year, it could also be partly careless disposal leading to spoons in the bin rather than only deliberate pocketings of 30p teaspoons!
Your idea is good. Marking them in a non-intrusive (to function) way would serve to make it clear this is communal property.
But, in essence we don't care, and I also think its not always wonton theft, I know I've shed spoons into the waste bin being uncareful.
But, in essence we don't care, and I also think its not always wonton theft, I know I've shed spoons into the waste bin being uncareful.
It hasn't worked for banks and all the various ways they've tried to keep pens from walking off, nor gas station bathroom keys. In effort you expend is ultimately wasted, as someone that wants to take will take and someone that is unawares they accidentally disposed of the utensil will not be stopped by any of the attempts. However if it makes you feel good and you enjoy the time spend over a weekend doing it, by all means have at. Just know what's to know going in. Which it sounds like you do.
I've always thought people stealing pens is just a form of advertising which is why any company offering pens puts logos on them.
All this post makes me think of is what other commonly-stolen objects one could put advertising on.
All this post makes me think of is what other commonly-stolen objects one could put advertising on.
I proudly leave my “This pen stolen from the Sloop Tavern” pen on my desk.
With that kind of marking it’s like they want me to take it!
With that kind of marking it’s like they want me to take it!
[deleted]
No, there are effective methods. One is to attach a giant fake flower into it.
Or make the pen a T-shaped or something. It does write on things but who wants an annoying pen that doesn't fit properly in a drawer and it difficult to do anything other than scribble a signature?
Some people also sloppily spray bikes with pink spray paint because then it's pretty much unsaleable. So all you have to worry about are the vandals who just want to ruin someone's day.
Some people also sloppily spray bikes with pink spray paint because then it's pretty much unsaleable. So all you have to worry about are the vandals who just want to ruin someone's day.
thankfully, locks can now be digital, so the key is now your phone or a code, which has other problems, but can't walk off in the same way
I'm not judging, but how exactly does that happen? Does the spoon fall into the trash while you're discarding something and you don't want to pick it up? Or do you throw out a container and miss that it had a spoon inside?
In a common area, drunk people and children sloppily doing a chore they don't want to, I should think. And depending on how grotty users of the space are, people leaving cutlery in dirty piles of crap for others to clear up, and the others don't see the hiding cutlery. The cleaners in my old university accommodation would remove dirty dishes to a box outside called the Stank Tank as it wasn't their job to do student washing up. After a month, it was binned or scavenged and a lot fancier stuff than a teaspoon was in there!
I can't say I've thrown away a spoon knowingly myself, but I have dropped cutlery in the bin once or twice. I haven't ever abandoned it but you can imagine people might if they don't value it. And based on the university, some people would happily lose a £30 pan rather than reach into the Stank Tank, so I can believe it.
I can't say I've thrown away a spoon knowingly myself, but I have dropped cutlery in the bin once or twice. I haven't ever abandoned it but you can imagine people might if they don't value it. And based on the university, some people would happily lose a £30 pan rather than reach into the Stank Tank, so I can believe it.
I've definitely been tempted to throw away a nasty container that might have gotten forgotten in the car or at the back of the fridge and someone left cutlery inside.
The really nice stuff is only brought out at Christmas. As long as there are enough forks/spoons/etc for 8 people in the drawer for day to day use, then I don't care that much.
The really nice stuff is only brought out at Christmas. As long as there are enough forks/spoons/etc for 8 people in the drawer for day to day use, then I don't care that much.
But you don't even need silverware to eat wontons.
Dim sum wise words, mon.
I'm in the Philippines now, and one thing I've noticed is that when you go out to a fast food joint (Jollibee, Chow King, Mang Inasal, &c.) they don't even have any plastic fork/knife/spoon dispensers, napkin dispensers, or condiment dispensers anywhere at all in the dining area. I'm told it's because people here take them home. Sometimes they steal all the napkins.
If you don't get these things after paying at the counter, you are out of luck. You can try to approach the counter to get them, but most people don't bother because these places are always so crowded.
If you don't get these things after paying at the counter, you are out of luck. You can try to approach the counter to get them, but most people don't bother because these places are always so crowded.
Is there a chance these are being accidentally thrown away, rather than stolen?
I'm sure I've thrown a non-reusable utensil in the garbage more than once in my life by accident. While I of course would feel bad, I'm also not going to dig it out of a 50gal trash can in nice clothes.
Surely that happens many times over 5 years when you have dozens or hundreds of employees.
I'm sure I've thrown a non-reusable utensil in the garbage more than once in my life by accident. While I of course would feel bad, I'm also not going to dig it out of a 50gal trash can in nice clothes.
Surely that happens many times over 5 years when you have dozens or hundreds of employees.
> I'm sure I've thrown a non-reusable utensil in the garbage more than once in my life by accident.
My partner and I somehow ran out of butter knives in our first apartment in under a year. We discovered that we'd leave a knife in a desert tin in the fridge (to cut a slice) but then someone would inevitably throw out the whole tin and the knife with it.
My partner and I somehow ran out of butter knives in our first apartment in under a year. We discovered that we'd leave a knife in a desert tin in the fridge (to cut a slice) but then someone would inevitably throw out the whole tin and the knife with it.
For the next set, buy something noticeable (i.e. bight yellow handles). I'd bet accidental theft will go down and folks will take time to return if they do accidentally take.
There are so many problems that are solved by ones own money, and people not being jerks about it. I think a lot about how some bus stops will just have chairs that people leave there to offer seating when the city decided not to put any.
This is called mutual aid, and is one of the fundamental underpinnings to anarchist theory. People will help each other, generally, if doing so is not too much of a burden on themselves. Systematizing that behavior into genuine community support for one another would (hypothetically) lead to outcomes of increased wellbeing for all.
In your example, the person who left out the chairs isn't worried about being paid back for the chairs. Someone has excess, they shared it freely without expecting anything in return, and the community is better for it.
In your example, the person who left out the chairs isn't worried about being paid back for the chairs. Someone has excess, they shared it freely without expecting anything in return, and the community is better for it.
Couldn't we do slightly better with communication though? Instead of altruistically clearing the dishwasher in the office every time, we can have a rotating dishwasher duty. Is this opposed to anarchism? What about not having an explicit dishwasher duty, but just a socially-enforced expectation to contribute?
When it's a duty that others have imposed on you, it becomes a form of oppression rather than free action. Instead of feeling good about helping everyone, you feel bad about being bossed around by everyone.
The "socially-enforced expectation" is the same. You know whether you're doing something altruistically for the common good, or whether you're doing it because if you don't others will try to shame you.
The "socially-enforced expectation" is the same. You know whether you're doing something altruistically for the common good, or whether you're doing it because if you don't others will try to shame you.
Moreover, with a culture of altruism, there is no principal-agent problem. You want to help others, so you do.
As soon as you introduce coercion, the type of people motivated by power are attracted to the power to coerce and corruption takes root.
As soon as you introduce coercion, the type of people motivated by power are attracted to the power to coerce and corruption takes root.
Sort of, anarchy does not mean individualism. It absolutely can be built around syndicalism and federation. If a group of people says, "we believe it's best to take turns doing this labor" then they can do that.
Typically there's a cultural expectation of "wellbeing for all", which becomes a significant social expectation. If it's the cultural standard, it changes the relationship to chores significantly - I can contribute to them knowing that the general person out there is also doing chores with my wellbeing in mind.
Typically there's a cultural expectation of "wellbeing for all", which becomes a significant social expectation. If it's the cultural standard, it changes the relationship to chores significantly - I can contribute to them knowing that the general person out there is also doing chores with my wellbeing in mind.
I recognize I'm completely ignorant about this topic so I have to ask: how does the theory fit within the story in the post?
If I understand you correctly, mutual aid theory explains the author buying cheap forks just to do something good. At the same time, in the absence of penalties people will steal forks until barely any remains. So why should one believe that the balance will favor the fork buyers more than the fork stealers?
If I understand you correctly, mutual aid theory explains the author buying cheap forks just to do something good. At the same time, in the absence of penalties people will steal forks until barely any remains. So why should one believe that the balance will favor the fork buyers more than the fork stealers?
The basic theory is that when something is abundant and everyone has what they need, the incentive for theft doesn't really exist. If you set out a barrel of forks and say, "take what you need" then at some point everyone has taken as many forks as they need. If we assume this is also happening for other bulk items, and everyone can just have as much as they need, there's nothing to trade those forks for, so taking a bunch doesn't benefit you at all.
Ask yourself, why would you take more than you need? Not some hypothetical other person, but you, personally. Do you think other people are in general likely to behave like you? (Put another way, do you think you are fairly typical when presented with a "take what's fair" scenario?)
It's like the candy bowl at an office or someone's house, or the "take a penny" cup at a store. I'm sure occasionally someone takes everything from it, but by and large people take what they'll personally use.
Ask yourself, why would you take more than you need? Not some hypothetical other person, but you, personally. Do you think other people are in general likely to behave like you? (Put another way, do you think you are fairly typical when presented with a "take what's fair" scenario?)
It's like the candy bowl at an office or someone's house, or the "take a penny" cup at a store. I'm sure occasionally someone takes everything from it, but by and large people take what they'll personally use.
I'm doing the opposite. I've been amassing small disposable plastic spoons when I order food for my supplements from various establishments for my supplements, looking for ideal sizes. I like to use the one from coffee shops, the best ones were from the airport. Disposable wood chopsticks can be surprisingly durable as well as long as it's not basilica wood.
What counts as an ideal size/shape/material for your cutlery? I no longer use any metal because I once chipped my tooth on one, and often bang it against my teeth.
What counts as an ideal size/shape/material for your cutlery? I no longer use any metal because I once chipped my tooth on one, and often bang it against my teeth.
I love this story, despite it being the sort of thing I can imagine ending up on LinkedIn.
Anyway, one question I did have which made me a little suspicious of the neat ending: why is the fork in the last picture obviously of a different type to that shown in the engraving picture? The order was 180 forks all of the same type.
Maybe Henry bought his own forks to donate?
Anyway, one question I did have which made me a little suspicious of the neat ending: why is the fork in the last picture obviously of a different type to that shown in the engraving picture? The order was 180 forks all of the same type.
Maybe Henry bought his own forks to donate?
> why is the fork in the last picture obviously of a different type
I think that last bit is tongue-in-cheek. That’s my read, anyway.
I think that last bit is tongue-in-cheek. That’s my read, anyway.
You, at your new job, is like a cafeteria with not enough forks. You have to go out, spend your own resources in filling in what is required at your company. That makes a successful company, and a successful you!
A "flood the zone" strategy similar to this works well for cheap items that continually vanish, such as pens, socks, charging cables, etc.
Did that for pens while employed as a pizza delivery driver nearly two decades ago. Customers would regularly sign for a credit card receipt with my pen, hand back the signed receipt, receive pizza, and somewhere in the object-management process wind up still holding the pen. The cheapest pens were like 8 cents each at Costco, so it literally wasn't worth my time to try to make sure my pen made it back to me.
[Salesmen for a thousand sellers of cheap custom-printed pens suddenly take notice]
I do that for myself because it drives me crazy when I get held up from what I'm doing by not having what I need, cables, adapters, etc.
I have also been quite generous with friends, trying to teach them the way. However, I've found that I'm just enabling bad habits in careless people, and before you know it I've run out of anything popular. So now, I still flood my zone, in secret, and let others fend for themselves.
I have also been quite generous with friends, trying to teach them the way. However, I've found that I'm just enabling bad habits in careless people, and before you know it I've run out of anything popular. So now, I still flood my zone, in secret, and let others fend for themselves.
Unfortunately many people feel they have no more forks to give
Makes me wonder if one were to take a 'college town', introduce tagged forks into the local dining facility at the beginning of the academic year, then beginning at midterms, start checking local thrift stores to see if they start "floating up". Increase these checks after the end of the academic year, to continue to chart when or if they appear.
From this, we can perhaps extrapolate a "fork drift" factor that the school could then use to determine future fork ordering? ;)
From this, we can perhaps extrapolate a "fork drift" factor that the school could then use to determine future fork ordering? ;)
Fun post! Although is it saying they are using the previous apartment tenant's silverware? I feel like I've had to bring my own silverware to the apartments I lived in.
It’s pretty common for student housing for houseware to be handed down from previous tenants when they left. It’s often cheaper to “pay it forward” to the next group of students than it is to store cheap houseware.
Thanks, TIL! My first apartment after leaving campus was 20+ minutes away, but that makes sense.
It's common for furnished student apartments to include silverware.
Since we're on HN I half expected this to have something to do with repositories on github. I need to get out more.
The corollary of Spoon Day.
https://www.nthmonkey.com/spoonday/
https://www.nthmonkey.com/spoonday/
Reading the title seemed like it was related to the Dining Philosophers problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem
I was going to post the same thing. "What does this have to do with concurrent processes?!" :)
It's a good problem to think about, and I hope most people consider it in their work.
It's a good problem to think about, and I hope most people consider it in their work.
This reminds me of the type of page I used to get on StumbleUpon a decade ago.
You can always identify cheap stainless steel cutlery from the sharp edges that cut into your skin while eating. Presumably the decent ones have extra manufacturing steps to polish off the burrs after stamping.
My first utensils when living on my own, it was normal for the edges of the spoons to be streaked with blood as they came out of my mouth.
That might explain the appeal to me of spoons that have the very noticeably rounded edges, more rounded than they need to be. :)
That might explain the appeal to me of spoons that have the very noticeably rounded edges, more rounded than they need to be. :)
I did a similar thing at a startup where I was working as a consultant. We would constantly run out of coffee cups so I started smuggling in more cups each day, some 50 in total. Luckily they were using cheap IKEA mugs so the total cost was roughly 100 €.
The problem could have been solved in many ways but it was a nice hobby for me. I ended up switching to work there as an employee and have been for ten years. I still use the mugs so it worked out OK.
The problem could have been solved in many ways but it was a nice hobby for me. I ended up switching to work there as an employee and have been for ten years. I still use the mugs so it worked out OK.
What he should have done was to create a foundation for supplying forks, making him and his roommate the officers of the foundation. They could have then solicited funds, including matching from other organizations. From those funds, they could have paid themselves handsome salaries for managing the foundation. Then with the mere pittance left over, they would then purchase forks. I'm sure that there would be other tax breaks in there somewhere to totally live a lavish lifestyle.
What generates that weird looking URL?
No idea, but the published url is much more normal: https://ben.page/forks
It's not been published, by the way.
I found this utterly charming. It reminded me how much I like tech people before Silicon Valley gets ahold of them and turns them into egomaniacs.
This was a very charming post! I clicked through and found myself reading another 8 blog posts from this person, and I concluded that this is the kind of person I think I'd like and like to work with. They appear to be an intern currently and probably will be looking for full-time work soon. (open hint to anyone looking to hire, this seems like a person I'd personally want to work with but alas am not in a hiring manager/recruiter position).
And, for what it's worth, I personally think Silicon Valley just gives a microphone to egomaniacs, which is different from turning charming tech people into egomaniacs. Zuck didn't need fame/money to produce Hot or Not. The quirky people I knew in college doing cool things are still doing quirky, cool things.
And, for what it's worth, I personally think Silicon Valley just gives a microphone to egomaniacs, which is different from turning charming tech people into egomaniacs. Zuck didn't need fame/money to produce Hot or Not. The quirky people I knew in college doing cool things are still doing quirky, cool things.
> The tenants who lived there the year before must have gone to Dewick and stolen some of the university’s silverware for themselves.
I think I've found the explanation for the original shortage.
I think I've found the explanation for the original shortage.
Incredible new Tufts lore
"But I had to make sure that my altruism would be commemorated. " - this sentence made me smile a little
Lovely!
seoulmetro(3)
"But I had to make sure that my altruism would be commemorated."
That's not how altruism works.
That's not how altruism works.
It's tongue in cheek, it's fun, it's a nice experiment, everybody wins.
I don't like it how people suggest altruism should always amount to zero (or even negative!) benefit to the person doing all the giving of value. It's not how altruism should work.
Are you only a true altruist if you go to help some poor kids in some poor country and hate every second of it? If so, I'm against altruism, it's something for sociopaths then.
I don't like it how people suggest altruism should always amount to zero (or even negative!) benefit to the person doing all the giving of value. It's not how altruism should work.
Are you only a true altruist if you go to help some poor kids in some poor country and hate every second of it? If so, I'm against altruism, it's something for sociopaths then.
Definition of altruism - "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."
To be clear - I'm not at all against doing good things for others and getting recognition for it, there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not altruism.
To be clear - I'm not at all against doing good things for others and getting recognition for it, there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not altruism.
At the very least altruism brings some kind of positive feeling, be it personal happiness to see others benefit or some feeling of social or even religious duty fulfilled, even if completely privately and never mentioned to another living soul. I don't think any altruism can be said to be utterly without some kind of benefit to the altruist.
Personally I don't think pure altruism even exists, per the definition. Actively and knowingly doing something good for someone else for absolutely no personal benefit is impossible. This is to all intents and purposes a contradiction.
I disagree with you, but it would probably be an impossibility for me to prove it! Why? Well, as soon as a truly altruistic act is observed by third-parties, there's a chance the actor could be rewarded for it (for instance, by being honoured by society). Then, we would have at least the ability to claim that the actor was doing it for the chance of a reward, rather than purely selflessly. Thus, truly altruistic acts can only be immune from accusations of selfishness if they are entirely unobservable!
Of course, I hope you'd agree that such an accusation would not always be plausible - the higher the personal risk of the act relative to the potential reward, the less plausible selfishness is and the more plausible altruism is.
I personally have acted altruistically - as you describe it, "actively and knowingly doing good for someone else for absolutely no personal benefit". I can't prove it to you, but I think it's a natural consequence of empathy. I'd posit that altruistic acts are often done by those in situations where they are vulnerable themselves, which is why events like natural disasters are often accompanied by unusual levels of social cohesion and acts of personal sacrifice. That instinct can be exploited, of course; yet, by itself, it is a beautiful thing.
Of course, I hope you'd agree that such an accusation would not always be plausible - the higher the personal risk of the act relative to the potential reward, the less plausible selfishness is and the more plausible altruism is.
I personally have acted altruistically - as you describe it, "actively and knowingly doing good for someone else for absolutely no personal benefit". I can't prove it to you, but I think it's a natural consequence of empathy. I'd posit that altruistic acts are often done by those in situations where they are vulnerable themselves, which is why events like natural disasters are often accompanied by unusual levels of social cohesion and acts of personal sacrifice. That instinct can be exploited, of course; yet, by itself, it is a beautiful thing.
> Thus, truly altruistic acts can only be immune from accusations of selfishness if they are entirely unobservable!
Are you yourself not an observer? If you feel good about having done it, it can't be completely selfless, you are benefiting by feeling good.
I realise I'm splitting hairs here, just to re-iterate - I'm not trying to take away from kind acts.
Are you yourself not an observer? If you feel good about having done it, it can't be completely selfless, you are benefiting by feeling good.
I realise I'm splitting hairs here, just to re-iterate - I'm not trying to take away from kind acts.
you're exaggerating the defintion of unselfish. It's unselfish of me to share my lunch with you when you've forgotten yours, even though I still eat my half of my whole for the selfish reason that I don't want to faint from hunger. A good reputation stands as encouragement to other to also be unselfish, so it's not selfish of me to wish to be recognized as recognition comes for free.
altruistic does not mean hair-shirted
altruistic does not mean hair-shirted
Yeah I also found that: "Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives."
Doesn't that just sound plain evil?
I mean, I can imagine sacrificing myself for relatives, especially for my kids and I wouldn't consider it detrimental to my own interests. In fact, knowingly letting my kids die while I could have prevented it by giving my own life sounds like entering hell from that point forward... So altruism must be something particularly insidious and obnoxious. Does it really even exist? Seems like it would require a lot of indoctrination and cognitive dissonance.
Doesn't that just sound plain evil?
I mean, I can imagine sacrificing myself for relatives, especially for my kids and I wouldn't consider it detrimental to my own interests. In fact, knowingly letting my kids die while I could have prevented it by giving my own life sounds like entering hell from that point forward... So altruism must be something particularly insidious and obnoxious. Does it really even exist? Seems like it would require a lot of indoctrination and cognitive dissonance.
Asking the BIG questions here... Like wtf would a school playing with so much money couldn't buy forks.
Kids shouldn't go to college
Kids shouldn't go to college
The cafeteria manager likely had no idea they were running out of forks. A simple email or phone call to the cafeteria department would have probably solved the problem, since managers are likely looking for ideas of things to buy, especially if they've been recommended by customers (students).
I disagree. I assume the manager was quite aware, but whenever he had previously asked for resources from his own boss before, they refused and implied that he needed to try to use even fewer resources.
After your manager makes it clear multiple times that they do not want to spend any money, even on things that are important, many sane people will stop caring.
He may have told the boss multiple times that they were running out of forks, and the boss said "well, we have over 200 forks, that should be enough".
But in the end, I blame the higher-level main manager. Stupidity, poor communication, stinginess, these are all very common. The workers, even first line managers, can only fight so much against it.
The first manager may have already bought a ton of spoons on his own.
After your manager makes it clear multiple times that they do not want to spend any money, even on things that are important, many sane people will stop caring.
He may have told the boss multiple times that they were running out of forks, and the boss said "well, we have over 200 forks, that should be enough".
But in the end, I blame the higher-level main manager. Stupidity, poor communication, stinginess, these are all very common. The workers, even first line managers, can only fight so much against it.
The first manager may have already bought a ton of spoons on his own.
Yeah, the idea that a college dining hall administrator is just sitting around desperately wishing he could spend more money but not knowing what on earth to spend it on unless he receives an email from a random student to whom he has zero accountability strikes me as far less likely than your theory.
Especially so in something that is certainly a cost centre. Not something marketable. I would expect something like cafeteria to be run on bare essentials, after the initial build phase. Spending money there is not marketable or rise profile of people involved.
> we have over 200 forks
I see someone's ERP system is in need of a manual stocktake!
I see someone's ERP system is in need of a manual stocktake!
The admin costs would probably be much much higher than $44