I just returned from my second trip to Budapest in the last year, and one key reason the city is a great place to be is its public transport. Specifically, it's breadth and volume of transport options that share a key component: during the day, you never have to wait more than 3-4 minutes for anything. This is key because it reduces the penalty per line exchange and allows for lots of short lines that the user can combine as they need, without getting out a timetable and planning.
In contrast, Seattle's bus system has large gaps between successive buses. When I lived in Queen Anne, I could take the 545 to work from Westlake and be there in about 30 minutes. Not bad, right? I just needed to get to Westlake. Any of the following lines would do: 1, 2, 13, 15, 18. And since any of those would be around any minute, this worked great!
Correction: would have worked great, if that assumption held true. The 2 and 13 ran down Queen Anne Ave and stopped 2 blocks from my place, but only ran about every 15 minutes combined. If I just missed one, I'd have to wait a long time for the next one. The 1 came over on Olympic and also stopped about 2 blocks from my place, but ran equally infrequently. All these lines, however, stop at Mercer and Queen Anne Ave (the 15 and 18 came up Mercer, alternating every 10 minutes). So, to give myself the best shot at catching any of these, I'd walk slightly further and between the 15 and 18 would never have to wait more than 10 minutes (except when a bus would inexplicably never show up) and sometimes I'd get lucky with one of the others. However, there was a mass convergence: all lines were supposed to be at Queen Anne and Mercer at 9:31. If I showed up at 9:32 (after walking about 5 minutes), I'd have to wait 9 more minutes.
For reasons that baffle me to this day, these lines then stop every 2 blocks (are we to believe that asking people to walk one extra block is a big ask??), including through the ride-free zones where all the homeless people add to the bus-stop overhead. Every stop features people getting on one at a time and if you're lucky, tapping their ORCA card, otherwise fishing for change. God forbid a person in a wheelchair want to get on the bus: that's about a 2-minute operation (in contrast, transport stops in Budapest happen in about 10-15 seconds). In other words, these bits of time add up real fast. And somehow, the bus would always get to 3rd and Pine/Pike right as the 545 was leaving (wait penalty: 9-15 minutes, depending on time of day).
Let's recap: walk 5 minutes, wait 0-9 minutes, ride the bus for about 15 minutes, walk 1 minute, wait for the 545 (0-12 minutes), then add 30 more minutes. Getting to the 545 (and lacking control over when I get there relative to 545 departure times) costs me 21-40 minutes.
I lived 2.1 miles away from the 545 stop and after a while decided that walking was the best course of action. It takes 26 minutes to do so every single time, and I can plan my arrival time to line up with the 545 so I don't have to wait as long. Taking the bus from Queen Anne occasionally saves me a few minutes and works out better, and often causes me to miss my connection. Let's call it identical for this exercise. How big of a fail is it that the break-even point for distance where riding the bus becomes worth it is in the neighborhood of 2 miles?
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Rubber rubs me wrong
I hate rubber.
That's not entirely true, but I do think rubber is in far too many places. My primary issue comes with anything that I spend time gripping: kitchen implements and luggage come to mind. Oxo has unilaterally destroyed every kitchen implement they make by rubber-wrapping any part that might be touched. Seriously, why does an ice cream scoop need a rubberized handle??
What's so bad about rubber, anyways?
Rubber is soft. Therefore, it should be comfortable to grip (says marketing), not unlike a plush teddy or idealized cloud. But, most implements don't need this level of cushiness; the flexibility of the rubber actually causes it to move slightly no matter how hard you grip it, more likely leading to irritated skin and calluses. Hard surfaces are uncomfortable only when they cut into your hand. Your hand has plenty of padding in it already. As long as a hard grip doesn't have sharp-ish edges/corners, you don't need the rubber.
Physics aside:
The metal-rubber-hand progression has a contact between two soft surfaces. Mashing two soft surfaces together is inherently unstable and leads to uncontrollable shifting between the two. There is no scenario where this uncontrollable shifting is a good thing: it gives the gripper (the hand) less control.
In addition to it not providing the touted comfort advantage over a well-formed piece of stainless steel, rubber (unlike steel) is:
1. soft (remember?) and therefore pits easily
2. soft (remember?) and therefore wears down
3. grippy (remember?) and therefore picks up tons of dirt, which comes with associated oil, etc
3a. that you then can't wash off as easily
3b. which then accumulates to make your rubber grip gross and sticky
4. heavy, when compared to a replacement steel structure
4a. causing you to have to grip harder, leading to fatigue
Rubber may even have weird chemicals in it too (stainless steel is way on the safe side for those concerned about long-term toxic materials), but I'm not gonna bother looking that up.
I also have one suitcase that has a rubber handle. It's my fault for buying it anyways, but any of the following would be more comfortable and longer lasting:
1. nylon fabric
2. molded hard plastic
3. leather
4. bike chain
The issue is that, again, the additional friction doesn't help me support the weight of the suitcase, makes it harder to slide my hand in and out from the handle and squishes once picked up, guaranteeing that some skin on my hand is now compressed/stretched in an annoying way.
Please leave rubber where it belongs: as a cushion between two hard objects, usually out of sight.
That's not entirely true, but I do think rubber is in far too many places. My primary issue comes with anything that I spend time gripping: kitchen implements and luggage come to mind. Oxo has unilaterally destroyed every kitchen implement they make by rubber-wrapping any part that might be touched. Seriously, why does an ice cream scoop need a rubberized handle??
What's so bad about rubber, anyways?
Rubber is soft. Therefore, it should be comfortable to grip (says marketing), not unlike a plush teddy or idealized cloud. But, most implements don't need this level of cushiness; the flexibility of the rubber actually causes it to move slightly no matter how hard you grip it, more likely leading to irritated skin and calluses. Hard surfaces are uncomfortable only when they cut into your hand. Your hand has plenty of padding in it already. As long as a hard grip doesn't have sharp-ish edges/corners, you don't need the rubber.
Physics aside:
The metal-rubber-hand progression has a contact between two soft surfaces. Mashing two soft surfaces together is inherently unstable and leads to uncontrollable shifting between the two. There is no scenario where this uncontrollable shifting is a good thing: it gives the gripper (the hand) less control.
In addition to it not providing the touted comfort advantage over a well-formed piece of stainless steel, rubber (unlike steel) is:
1. soft (remember?) and therefore pits easily
2. soft (remember?) and therefore wears down
3. grippy (remember?) and therefore picks up tons of dirt, which comes with associated oil, etc
3a. that you then can't wash off as easily
3b. which then accumulates to make your rubber grip gross and sticky
4. heavy, when compared to a replacement steel structure
4a. causing you to have to grip harder, leading to fatigue
Rubber may even have weird chemicals in it too (stainless steel is way on the safe side for those concerned about long-term toxic materials), but I'm not gonna bother looking that up.
I also have one suitcase that has a rubber handle. It's my fault for buying it anyways, but any of the following would be more comfortable and longer lasting:
1. nylon fabric
2. molded hard plastic
3. leather
4. bike chain
The issue is that, again, the additional friction doesn't help me support the weight of the suitcase, makes it harder to slide my hand in and out from the handle and squishes once picked up, guaranteeing that some skin on my hand is now compressed/stretched in an annoying way.
Please leave rubber where it belongs: as a cushion between two hard objects, usually out of sight.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Email needs a like button
I periodically get large-audience mails at work. For example: "hey, we did a great job at some off-site presentation". I want to give the feedback that I, too, think this is awesome, but don't want to be the next in the reply-all chain of brief answers; I also don't want to spam the sender and have them miss the few potentially interesting responses in there. Facebook (and other social networks) solve this by allowing for a real reply and a like. So clean!
The success of Yammer shows that corporations are buying into a microblogging culture. I've tried this out and it's just awful. Good luck finding a thread from 5 months ago that has relevant information. Good luck even seeing all the things that are interesting to you. Most people try to target posts by tagging those they'd otherwise put on a To: line to ensure notifications, but that only solves half the problem. Newsfeed-based communication is only ok for content that is not critical. That's the whole point: I can pop in anytime and interact with recent content or disappear for a while and not care what flew by when I wasn't looking. And nevermind the separate experience around getting anyone's attention outside of my network or group of friends.
The end result is that newsfeed-based communications aren't much different from everyone sending messages to a group distribution list, and sometimes calling out specific names to avoid email filters shoving those messages out of sight. Yep, because that's where mass messages end up: out of sight. And the sender knows this. And wonders if anyone saw their announcement.
Therefore, email needs a like button.
The success of Yammer shows that corporations are buying into a microblogging culture. I've tried this out and it's just awful. Good luck finding a thread from 5 months ago that has relevant information. Good luck even seeing all the things that are interesting to you. Most people try to target posts by tagging those they'd otherwise put on a To: line to ensure notifications, but that only solves half the problem. Newsfeed-based communication is only ok for content that is not critical. That's the whole point: I can pop in anytime and interact with recent content or disappear for a while and not care what flew by when I wasn't looking. And nevermind the separate experience around getting anyone's attention outside of my network or group of friends.
The end result is that newsfeed-based communications aren't much different from everyone sending messages to a group distribution list, and sometimes calling out specific names to avoid email filters shoving those messages out of sight. Yep, because that's where mass messages end up: out of sight. And the sender knows this. And wonders if anyone saw their announcement.
Therefore, email needs a like button.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
The Facebook Dilemma
Since Facebook has gone public and answers to the investors, I've seen a few annoying ad-related things creep in. First came targeted ads in feeds, styled to look like a post from a friend (except these would come from a brazilian clothing maker, or a psychology graduate school, or ... ). Then came elevation of a friend's post with a link to a business to the top spot in my feed for the better part of 24 hours (despite sorting my feed by 'most recent'). And most recently, I received a notification because a friend had checked in at a location near me. In the middle of the work day. 7 miles away. I imagine the new emotion verb in status updates is intended to help them parse reactions to places where I've checked in and so on.
Clearly they are trying to increase the level of interconnectivity between people and exploit that by pairing in businesses. This is how you become an ad firm. Unlike Google which does all the ad research and presenation somewhat on the sly, we give Facebook explicit information about us and see the ads only on facebook.com, thus we associate all of this with them, directly. How in-my-face can they get? Unless it's really useful, people will treat ads as malware and either leave or ad-block it, both of which are bad for Facebook. In either case it raises awareness that Facebook is mining me, trying to get as much out of me as possible. Should I feel creeped out? Should I worry they are hoarding too much info about me, even though I'm the one that placed it up there?
The common reaction of "you can just turn it off" or "just use ad-block" in an interesting reflection of "out of sight, out of mind". This works in Facebook's favor because it means at least some people don't really care that they are being used as long as they don't have to see the consequences right in front of them. They're not worried about the stockpile building in the background. I'm not sure if I am or not, and I feel like as long as it stays on facebook.com, I'm pretty fine with it. Once it starts spilling over and following me everywhere, fueling the giant ad machine, that's when it becomes a huge turnoff (and I suspect would have the same effect on others).
We've established people will not pay for a social network, so pay-per-use pricing models won't work. For advertisement to work, they need to get people to continue creating a rich influx of content. If they start turning away those who post the most (and therefore have the most obvious ad targeting), they run the risk of damaging their ecosystem. Everyone agrees they are sitting on a treasure trove of information, but to clearly exploit that to their gain loses our trust. It removes Facebook as our safe place, our friend, our site where we get to drive what's happening. It makes them into a stalker. By trying to do too much, they run a serious risk of damaging their brand, their user base and ultimately, their bottom line.
And in the meantime, the shareholders are knocking.
Clearly they are trying to increase the level of interconnectivity between people and exploit that by pairing in businesses. This is how you become an ad firm. Unlike Google which does all the ad research and presenation somewhat on the sly, we give Facebook explicit information about us and see the ads only on facebook.com, thus we associate all of this with them, directly. How in-my-face can they get? Unless it's really useful, people will treat ads as malware and either leave or ad-block it, both of which are bad for Facebook. In either case it raises awareness that Facebook is mining me, trying to get as much out of me as possible. Should I feel creeped out? Should I worry they are hoarding too much info about me, even though I'm the one that placed it up there?
The common reaction of "you can just turn it off" or "just use ad-block" in an interesting reflection of "out of sight, out of mind". This works in Facebook's favor because it means at least some people don't really care that they are being used as long as they don't have to see the consequences right in front of them. They're not worried about the stockpile building in the background. I'm not sure if I am or not, and I feel like as long as it stays on facebook.com, I'm pretty fine with it. Once it starts spilling over and following me everywhere, fueling the giant ad machine, that's when it becomes a huge turnoff (and I suspect would have the same effect on others).
We've established people will not pay for a social network, so pay-per-use pricing models won't work. For advertisement to work, they need to get people to continue creating a rich influx of content. If they start turning away those who post the most (and therefore have the most obvious ad targeting), they run the risk of damaging their ecosystem. Everyone agrees they are sitting on a treasure trove of information, but to clearly exploit that to their gain loses our trust. It removes Facebook as our safe place, our friend, our site where we get to drive what's happening. It makes them into a stalker. By trying to do too much, they run a serious risk of damaging their brand, their user base and ultimately, their bottom line.
And in the meantime, the shareholders are knocking.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Humans are the smartest!
But by how much? I just read a story about dogs taking the subway to scavenging grounds during the day, then going back to the suburbs for shelter at night.
I also heard a story about crows. One was given a test: A small bucket of food was placed in a tube, and several items were left lying around. Within one minute, the crow bent a pipe cleaner and used it to fish out the bucket.
Both of these stories make me think there are people I've met who couldn't figure this out. We like to think of ourselves as the smartest out there, but animals have solved problems we have trouble with (like turtles migrating across thousands of miles of ocean to a tiny island by magnetic fields alone). What is the net value of the intelligence/skills they have that we don't? Sure, as a race we can do things they can't, however, is there some serious overlap?
I also heard a story about crows. One was given a test: A small bucket of food was placed in a tube, and several items were left lying around. Within one minute, the crow bent a pipe cleaner and used it to fish out the bucket.
Both of these stories make me think there are people I've met who couldn't figure this out. We like to think of ourselves as the smartest out there, but animals have solved problems we have trouble with (like turtles migrating across thousands of miles of ocean to a tiny island by magnetic fields alone). What is the net value of the intelligence/skills they have that we don't? Sure, as a race we can do things they can't, however, is there some serious overlap?
Practical science
While using the toddler-height urinal at work yesterday, I remembered something odd I once heard from (or about) a girl: she could tell a man's penis size just by listening to him pee. The louder the noise, the longer the hose, she claimed. Why? Because the closer the stream starts to the bowl, the harder it hits the water.
Hmm. So many routes to take on the how-can-you-be-so-wrong train ...
1. Anyone who's been in a pissing contest can tell you that their stream is not faster than a speeding bullet. In fact, a quick back-of-the-napkin calculation shows an approximate exit speed of 5mph. Water's freefall speed is 10-15mph - the stream would hit the bowl harder if gravity's allowed to act on it for a while (exactly contradicting the basis of her evaluation).
2. The noise is probably impacted by the flux of the stream (essentially, the cross-section of fluid) which could vary dramatically from man to man.
3. The noise is also impacted by where in the toilet he's aiming. Perhaps he's playing target practice against the side of the bowl?
4. Perhaps the man was not standing entirely straight up, thus decreasing the distance?
5. Perhaps the bowl was less full, thus increasing the distance?
6. Perhaps her estimate of just where the spout starts is a bit off ... we do have different length legs after all!
7. Perhaps there's different ambient noise, changing the perception of the stream impact?
The first point requires some physics knowledge and will therefore not be accessibly to most people. The second requires a realization about anatomy, that again, could be tricky. The third could be something women don't think about, but any man could clarify. The last several may sound jokey, but this is a scenario where being off by a few inches could lead to serious mis-evaluation (and surprise/disappointment) ... and these are also things that anyone should be able to come up with to realize their foolproof penis evaluation system is just foolish.
Teach science. Teach math. Teach logic. Teach critical thinking. Measure penises with a ruler.
Hmm. So many routes to take on the how-can-you-be-so-wrong train ...
1. Anyone who's been in a pissing contest can tell you that their stream is not faster than a speeding bullet. In fact, a quick back-of-the-napkin calculation shows an approximate exit speed of 5mph. Water's freefall speed is 10-15mph - the stream would hit the bowl harder if gravity's allowed to act on it for a while (exactly contradicting the basis of her evaluation).
2. The noise is probably impacted by the flux of the stream (essentially, the cross-section of fluid) which could vary dramatically from man to man.
3. The noise is also impacted by where in the toilet he's aiming. Perhaps he's playing target practice against the side of the bowl?
4. Perhaps the man was not standing entirely straight up, thus decreasing the distance?
5. Perhaps the bowl was less full, thus increasing the distance?
6. Perhaps her estimate of just where the spout starts is a bit off ... we do have different length legs after all!
7. Perhaps there's different ambient noise, changing the perception of the stream impact?
The first point requires some physics knowledge and will therefore not be accessibly to most people. The second requires a realization about anatomy, that again, could be tricky. The third could be something women don't think about, but any man could clarify. The last several may sound jokey, but this is a scenario where being off by a few inches could lead to serious mis-evaluation (and surprise/disappointment) ... and these are also things that anyone should be able to come up with to realize their foolproof penis evaluation system is just foolish.
Teach science. Teach math. Teach logic. Teach critical thinking. Measure penises with a ruler.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Red, Yellow, Blue and Green
I recently took Insights training at work. It's a system that assesses personality types. In case you're thinking "this is kinda kooky", the dimensions were referred to as "color energies", which made me think of Jane Lynch's character in A Might Wind explaining that they were part of WINC: Witches in Night's Colors. It's crazy to worship some man with a beard in the sky. They are simply just in tune with the 47th vibration of nature. Anyone who gives these things a thought would surely come to the same conclusion.
Each color represents a personality dimension; each color has a tagline as well.
Red: "Be brief, be bright, be gone". Alternatively, "let's get this done and move on"
Yellow: "Involve me"
Blue: "Give me details". Alternatively, "I want to consider all my options"
Green: "Show me you care"
A personality profile is the measured percentage each of these applies. I was red=75, yellow=67, blue=63, green=21.
As you may have guessed, engineers are heavily blue. Probably three quarters of our class (70 people) were at least 50 percent blue. Maybe a third of us were 50 percent red. This may be why I hate the 6 engineers order 3 pizzas scenario.
Surprisingly I found that people's colors really did line up with what I thought of them, and the recommendations the accompanying packet had for how best to and not to interact with me also made a lot of sense. I even cross-checked for the horoscope approach (put a little bit of everything in there, jumbled up and sliced this way and that so that everyone finds something they identify with) and didn't find it in there. The most interesting one of these was "do let him know he's in control." At first I resisted being portrayed as domineering, but then took it another way: don't involve me unless I have some control over the outcome. It's true! This is one of my pet peeves from both angles: why would you waste your time getting my input if you don't really need it? How does it help you get where you need to go? Yep, I'm red... and that other guy, clearly blue :)
Each color represents a personality dimension; each color has a tagline as well.
Red: "Be brief, be bright, be gone". Alternatively, "let's get this done and move on"
Yellow: "Involve me"
Blue: "Give me details". Alternatively, "I want to consider all my options"
Green: "Show me you care"
A personality profile is the measured percentage each of these applies. I was red=75, yellow=67, blue=63, green=21.
As you may have guessed, engineers are heavily blue. Probably three quarters of our class (70 people) were at least 50 percent blue. Maybe a third of us were 50 percent red. This may be why I hate the 6 engineers order 3 pizzas scenario.
Surprisingly I found that people's colors really did line up with what I thought of them, and the recommendations the accompanying packet had for how best to and not to interact with me also made a lot of sense. I even cross-checked for the horoscope approach (put a little bit of everything in there, jumbled up and sliced this way and that so that everyone finds something they identify with) and didn't find it in there. The most interesting one of these was "do let him know he's in control." At first I resisted being portrayed as domineering, but then took it another way: don't involve me unless I have some control over the outcome. It's true! This is one of my pet peeves from both angles: why would you waste your time getting my input if you don't really need it? How does it help you get where you need to go? Yep, I'm red... and that other guy, clearly blue :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)