[gwnn]

Fluffy, on 2014-June-30, 16:55, said:

This one happens so often in spannish ones: It would be good to score now (or before the half ends)

Heard this on BBC after Djokovic won the second set 6-4:
"That's a brilliant response to losing the first set!"
But a less-than-brilliant observation.

[gwnn]

Worst match-viewing experience ever: we were sitting outside a bar (the weather was nice), they put a TV outside for the world cup. Unfortunately, the neighbouring bar also had a TV but on a different channel (German vs Dutch), and their feed was about 3 seconds ahead of ours. So whenever there was a chance we could hear that nothing would come of it. I was rooting for the Germans but I could barely be happy for the goal since the other bar started cheering even before the cross.

And I know how stupid it sounds but those 3 seconds really feel like a lot when you can tell the future for every chance.

[Mbodell]

gwnn, on 2014-July-13, 16:58, said:

Worst match-viewing experience ever: we were sitting outside a bar (the weather was nice), they put a TV outside for the world cup. Unfortunately, the neighbouring bar also had a TV but on a different channel (German vs Dutch), and their feed was about 3 seconds ahead of ours. So whenever there was a chance we could hear that nothing would come of it. I was rooting for the Germans but I could barely be happy for the goal since the other bar started cheering even before the cross.

And I know how stupid it sounds but those 3 seconds really feel like a lot when you can tell the future for every chance.

We had a similar situation with some of the earlier games that we watched from work. The espn web coverage would stall every now and then due to connectivity and the projected web page would be from 1 to 10 seconds behind live. Other people in the room with their laptops "working" sometimes had their own feed and were a few seconds ahead and would react to things right before we saw them on the projected coverage.

[GreenMan]

Similar dynamic with Univision in the U.S., which was a few seconds ahead of ESPN.

[Winstonm]

People who, when there is heavy traffic, stop to allow another driver to pull out into the traffic from a parking lot or mall entrance. These people don't realize that this little gesture may make them feel good about themselves, but it is grossly unfair to all those behind them who may miss the traffic light because they, too, were forced to wait.

The best way to help everyone is to follow the stated traffic laws and customs - when the light is green, go, and let the person trying to merge into traffic find his own method - including taking an alternate route or choosing a different time of day next time.

Likewise, people who ignore double yellow lines and turn left illegally across them - and the police who constantly ignore this traffic offense, once again delaying all the law-abiding traffic in order to satisfy the wants of one person who can't figure out that there are alternative ways to reach a destination.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-15, 19:22, said:

People who, when there is heavy traffic, stop to allow another driver to pull out into the traffic from a parking lot or mall entrance. These people don't realize that this little gesture may make them feel good about themselves, but it is grossly unfair to all those behind them who may miss the traffic light because they, too, were forced to wait.

What would you have a person do, drive forward so as to block the other driver's path?

[Antrax]

Traffic laws include "starvation" situations, meaning if everyone were to drive like a robot a set of drivers could take an hour to get past a single roundabout on certain hours. It's the city's fault for poor design, but I don't want to punish innocent drivers for that, so I often let people merge ahead of me even when I have right of wait in places where the alternative would be for them to way excessively long. I never realized it pisses anyone off.

[gwnn]

I have the opposite pet peeve, I'm a biker and as you know sometimes there's quite a few of us in the Netherlands at the same time. We often have intersections where all four directions of bikers get green lights (on the separate bicycle traffic lights) simultaneously. So sometimes I try to let bikers that go from my right to my left pass ahead of me, especially if it's only 2 or 3 guys. However, often times the bikers behind me don't think so and just overtake me, making the other direction wait anyway. A related one: I stop when the light turns red and the guy behind me bumps into me because he was accelerating, not braking.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2014-July-15, 20:09, said:

What would you have a person do, drive forward so as to block the other driver's path?

I would simply have people understand that being part of a group means that individual actions effect the entire group - that choosing the action best for the group is actually serving individual self-interests, as well.

[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-16, 07:51, said:

I would simply have people understand that being part of a group means that individual actions effect the entire group - that choosing the action best for the group is actually serving individual self-interests, as well.

If only the problem were that simple.

You cannot simply reason that it is better to let one guy wait for 5 minutes (300 seconds) so that 200 guys save 2 seconds of time because 400 seconds is more than 300 seconds. Not all seconds are created equal.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Where I live, it's illegal to block a side road. People do it anyway. I guess they're following Winston's model.

[GreenMan]

The situation in question probably happens more with driveways. It's not against the law to be in front of one if you're not parked.

ETA: Also, it's not against the law to drive through an intersection, even though you're briefly "blocking" the side road.

[Winstonm]

Trinidad, on 2014-July-16, 08:06, said:

If only the problem were that simple.

You cannot simply reason that it is better to let one guy wait for 5 minutes (300 seconds) so that 200 guys save 2 seconds of time because 400 seconds is more than 300 seconds. Not all seconds are created equal.

Rik

I think it is that simple - if there are 200 people trying to turn right at the light and they are all in the proper lane then serving the interests of all 200 is clearly more appropriate to serving the desires of a individual outside that group.

Likewise, what gives the person who allows the cut-in the right to force people behind him to wait or miss the light? The rights of all are protected by everyone following procedure - not by having mavericks loose.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-16, 20:40, said:

I think it is that simple - if there are 200 people trying to turn right at the light and they are all in the proper lane then serving the interests of all 200 is clearly more appropriate to serving the desires of a individual outside that group.

Likewise, what gives the person who allows the cut-in the right to force people behind him to wait or miss the light? The rights of all are protected by everyone following procedure - not by having mavericks loose.

Wow, you must find driving really stressful. I suggest you move to a city with a decent public transport network.

[Antrax]

Winstonm, what about my example? There are 5 drivers waiting to enter a roundabout on your right. There are infinity drivers behind you, meaning they keep coming. Your lane has right of way. Do you drive on? If the driver ahead of you lets someone from the lane on the right merge, do you resent that?

[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on 2014-July-16, 20:40, said:

I think it is that simple - if there are 200 people trying to turn right at the light and they are all in the proper lane then serving the interests of all 200 is clearly more appropriate to serving the desires of a individual outside that group.

If it were that simple, logistics would not be a science (and one of the more complex ones).

The 600 people with the right of way are each sacrificing 1 second that they can easily afford. It won't make any difference in their lives if they pick up their kids from soccer practice (or start cooking, or arrive at the golf course, or ...) 1 second later. This 1 second falls in the normal tolerance of life. They can all compensate for it by walking a tiny bit faster than normal when they get out of the car. But most likely they will have to wait one second less (e.g. for soccer practice to finish).

But to the one guy waiting to cut in, the 600 seconds (10 minutes) are a significant difference: He will have a coach yell at him and a few angry kids, or he won't have time to cook the rice, or he will miss his tee time (possibly against the guy who didn't let him cut in). In turn, these 10 minutes significantly influence the lives of others (the coach, the kids, the family that can't eat rice, or his golf partner).

So, in logistics you have to sacrifice cheap seconds to gain expensive seconds.

Rik

[Fluffy]

I disagree with that Rik, all seconds are equal. Losing 10 minutes is not the end of the world either if it is predictable (if its at random then it might be a bit too much if someone gets various delays in a row).
And that is not the problem at stake either, we are talking about 600 seconds for a group, vs a lot less for an individual.

We might be alive when the traffic/cars are regulated by computers, and I predict the tendency to reduce delays will be to increase length of lights, increasing the flow on funnel points (probably not the right english term) by having cards transit at higher speeds on the key points.

Perhapsits a personal thing, I feel extremely ashamed when I block a several cards behind me while parking. To the point of sometimes missing a parking spot.

Quote

But to the one guy waiting to cut in, the 600 seconds (10 minutes) are a significant difference: He will have a coach yell at him and a few angry kids, or he won't have time to cook the rice, or he will miss his tee time (possibly against the guy who didn't let him cut in). In turn, these 10 minutes significantly influence the lives of others (the coach, the kids, the family that can't eat rice, or his golf partner).

Another way to look at this, if it was ok for an individual to win 10 minutes making others delay 2 seconds, it should be worth it to open a way for the car last in the row and overtake everyone so he can arrive 10 minutes earlier. This is obviously not worth it.

[Antrax]

Here it's considered legitimate to block the road while waiting for someone to evacuate a parking spot. I'm surprised Madrid has such great parking that similar ethics hadn't evolved.

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2014-July-17, 03:02, said:

I disagree with that Rik, all seconds are equal.

Perhaps in the natural sciences, but not in planning and logistics. Needing extra seconds on a so called critical timeline causes delays. Preventing the need for these extra seconds is worth money. Extra seconds that are not on a critical path just shift waiting periods from one point in time to another. They do not cause delays.

Say that there are two cars meeting at an intersection. Both cars are on their way to the train station, which is normally a 5 minute drive (but you never really know what lies ahead). The people in car A need to catch a train in 6 minutes, the people in car B need to catch a train in an hour. If our global objective is that everybody catches their train, and if we would be able to decide over this (normally we aren't) which car should we let go first? Whose minutes are the most expensive?

Car A is on a critical timeline. Delays have significant consequences (missing the train). Car B is not on a critical timeline. If Car B has to wait 2 minutes for a truck to unload, that only means that they wait 2 minutes less at the platform. The wait might even have a positive value (and, hence, time "saved" a negative value), e.g. because they now need to pay less for parking at the station.

Other example:
You are young, free and single (I know you aren't and neither am I, at least you are still young ) and a nice girl is coming for dinner at 6PM. You decide to cook pasta with a nice sauce and to bake a bread.
For the bread you need to mix and kneed the ingredients (10 minutes), let the dough rise for an hour, and bake for 20 minutes.
To cook the pasta you will need to bring water to a boil (5 minutes) and cook the pasta in 10 minutes.
To make the sauce, you will cut tomatoes, zucchini, bell peppers and onions (takes 10 minutes) and cook it all with ground beef (takes 10 minutes).

The dinner needs to be ready at 6PM, and now it is 4:30PM. You start by mixing the flour and yeast and the phone rings. This phone call will delay your meal or ruin the bread, which will not impress the nice girl. You decide to let it ring since you are on a critical timeline.
The dough is mixed and is starting to rise. It is 4:40. You decide to start cutting the vegetables for the sauce. At 4:45, when half the vegetables are cut, the phone rings again. This time a phone call will not delay your meal and you answer the phone. You talk for 10 minutes to your mother, who reminds you to put basil, thyme and oregano in the sauce.

In both cases, it was your mother who called. The first time, the 10 minutes were expensive and would have caused a delay (and perhaps the girl). The second time, the 10 minutes didn't cost you anything.

In physics (ignoring relativistic effects ), a second always is the same second: 1000 ms, 1/3600 of an hour.
In logistics, not all seconds are equal. Some seconds are indifferent, others may be life changing.

Rik

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2014-July-16, 20:20, said:

The situation in question probably happens more with driveways. It's not against the law to be in front of one if you're not parked.

ETA: Also, it's not against the law to drive through an intersection, even though you're briefly "blocking" the side road.

This is just silly.