A woman died passed away while riding Disneyland's Haunted Mansion last Monday.
Anaheim Fire & Rescue responded to Disneyland on Monday, Oct. 6 at about 6:30 p.m. for an unresponsive woman in her 60s who had just finished riding the Haunted Mansion attraction, according to spokesperson Sgt.
The post Disneyland's Haunted Mansion claims 1000th resident appeared first on Boing Boing.
In September 1980, a mysterious man in his late 20s walked into the Horseshoe Club in Las Vegas carrying $777,000 in cash — and bet it all on a single roll of the dice.
The gambler, wearing a sports shirt and boots, had called ahead to ask owner Jack Binion if the casino would accept such a massive wager. — Read the rest
The post In 1980, a mysterious stranger bet $777,000 on a single craps roll appeared first on Boing Boing.
The offline church is a simple website with a twist. In order to access this digital "church," you must turn on airplane mode. The website won't give you full access unless you're disconnected from the internet.
Once you switch on airplane mode, a beautiful photo appears. — Read the rest
The post This website only works in airplane mode — welcome to the offline church appeared first on Boing Boing.
I recently asked why people seem to hate dating apps so much. In response, 80% of you emailed me some version of the following theory:
The thing about dating apps is that if they do a good job and match people up, then the matched people will quit the app and stop paying. So they have an incentive to string people along but not to actually help people find long-term relationships.
May I explain why I don’t find this type of theory very helpful?
I’m not saying that I think it’s wrong, mind you. Rather, my objection is that while the theory is phrased in terms of dating apps, the same basic pattern applies to basically anyone who is trying to make money by doing anything.
For example, consider a pizza restaurant. Try these theories on for size:
Pizza: “The thing about pizza restaurants is that if they use expensive ingredients or labor-intensive pizza-making techniques, then it costs more to make pizza. So they have an incentive to use low-cost ingredients and labor-saving shortcuts.”
Pizza II: “The thing about pizza restaurants is that if they have nice tables separated at a comfortable distance, then they can’t fit as many customers. So they have an incentive to use tiny tables and cram people in cheek by jowl.”
Pizza III: “The thing about pizza restaurants is that if they sell big pizzas, then people will eat them and stop being hungry, meaning they don’t buy additional pizza. So they have an incentive to serve tiny low-calorie pizzas.”
See what I mean? You can construct similar theories for other domains, too:
Cars: “The thing about automakers is that making cars safe is expensive. So they have an incentive to make unsafe cars.”
Videos: “The thing about video streaming is that high-resolution video uses more expensive bandwidth. So they have an incentive to use low-resolution.”
Blogging: “The thing about bloggers is that research is time-consuming. So they have an incentive to be sloppy about the facts.”
Durability: “The thing about {lightbulb, car, phone, refrigerator, cargo ship} manufacturing is that if you make a {lightbulb, car, phone, refrigerator, cargo ship} that lasts a long time, then people won’t buy new ones. So there’s an incentive to make {lightbulbs, cars, phones, refrigerators, cargo ships} that break quickly.”
All these theories can be thought of as instances of two general patterns:
Make product worse, get money: “The thing about selling goods or services is that making goods or services better costs money. So people have an incentive to make goods and services worse.”
Raise price, get money: “The thing about selling goods and services is that if you raise prices, then you get more money. So people have an incentive to raise prices.”
Are these theories wrong? Not exactly. But it sure seems like something is missing.
I’m sure most pizza restauranteurs would be thrilled to sell lukewarm 5 cm cardboard discs for $300 each. They do in fact have an incentive to do that, just as predicted by these theories! Yet, in reality, pizza restaurants usually sell pizzas that are made out of food. So clearly these theories aren’t telling the whole story.
Say you have a lucrative business selling 5 cm cardboard discs for $300. I am likely to think, “I like money. Why don’t I sell pizzas that are only mostly cardboard, but also partly made of flour? And why don’t I sell them for $200, so I can steal Valued Reader’s customers?” But if I did that, then someone else would probably set prices at only $100, or even introduce cardboard-free pizzas, and this would continue until hitting some kind of equilibrium.
Sure, producers want to charge infinity dollars for things that cost them zero dollars to make. But consumers want to pay zero dollars for stuff that’s infinitely valuable. It’s in the conflict between these desires that all interesting theories live.
This is why I don’t think it’s helpful to point out that people have an incentive to make their products worse. Of course they do. The interesting question is, why are they able to get away with it?
First reason stuff is bad: People are cheap
Why are seats so cramped on planes? Is it because airlines are greedy? Sure. But while they might be greedy, I don’t think they’re dumb. If you do a little math, you can calculate that if airlines were to remove a single row of seats, they could add perhaps 2.5 cm (1 in) of extra legroom for everyone, while only decreasing the number of paying customers by around 3%. (This is based on a 737 with single-class, but you get the idea.)
So why don’t airlines rip out a row of seats, raise prices by 3% and enjoy the reduced costs for fuel and customer service? The only answer I can see is that people, on average, aren’t actually willing to pay 3% more for 2.5 cm more legroom. We want a worse but cheaper product, and so that’s what we get.
I think this is the most common reason stuff is “bad”. It’s why Subway sandwiches are so soggy, why video games are so buggy, and why IKEA furniture and Primark clothes fall apart so quickly.
It’s good when things are bad for this reason. Or at least, that’s the premise of capitalism: When companies cut costs, that’s the invisible hand redirecting resources to maximize social value, or whatever. Companies may be motivated by greed. And you may not like it, since you want to pay zero dollars for infinite value. But this is markets working as designed.
Second reason stuff is bad: Information asymmetries
Why is it that almost every book / blog / podcast about longevity is such garbage? Well, we don’t actually know many things that will reliably increase longevity. And those things are mostly all boring / hard / non-fun. And even if you do all of them, it probably only adds a couple of years in expectation. And telling people these facts is not a good way to find suckers who will pay you lots of money for your unproven supplements / seminars / etc.
True! But it doesn’t explain why all longevity stuff is so bad. Why don’t honest people tell the true story and drive all the hucksters out of business? I suspect the answer is that unless you have a lot of scientific training and do a lot of research, it’s basically impossible to figure out just how huckstery all the hucksters really are.
I think this same basic phenomenon explains why some supplements contain heavy metals, why some food contains microplastics, why restaurants use so much butter and salt, why rentals often have crappy insulation, and why most cars seem to only be safe along dimensions included in crash test scores. When consumers can’t tell good from evil, evil triumphs.
Third reason stuff is bad: People have bad taste
Sometimes stuff is bad because people just don’t appreciate the stuff you consider good. Examples are definitionally controversial, but I think this includes restaurants in cities where all restaurants are bad, North American tea, and travel pants. This reason has a blurry boundary with information asymmetries, as seen in ultrasonic humidifiers or products that use Sucralose instead of aspartame for “safety”.
Fourth reason stuff is bad: Pricing power
Finally, sometimes stuff is bad because markets aren’t working. Sometimes a company is selling a product but has some kind of “moat” that makes it hard for anyone else to compete with them, e.g. because of some technological or regulatory barrier, control of some key resource or location, intellectual property, a beloved brand, or network effects.
If that’s true, then those companies don’t have to worry as much about someone else stealing their business, and so (because everyone is axiomatically greedy) they will find ways to make their product cheaper and/or raise prices up until the price is equal to the full value it provides to the marginal consumer.
Why is food so expensive at sporting events? Yes, people have no alternatives. But people know food is expensive at sporting events. And they don’t like it. Instead of selling water for $17, why don’t venues sell water for $2 and raise ticket prices instead? I don’t know. Probably something complicated, like that expensive food allows you to extract extra money from rich people without losing business from non-rich people.
So of course dating apps would love to string people along for years instead of finding them long-term relationships, so they keep paying money each month. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people at those companies have literally thought, “Maybe we should string people along for years instead of finding them long-term relationships, so they keep paying money each month, I love money so much.”
But if they are actually doing that (which is unclear to me) or if they are bad in some other way, then how do they get away with it? Why doesn’t someone else create a competing app that’s better and thereby steal all their business? It seems like the answer has to be either “because that’s impossible” or “because people don’t really want that”. That’s where the mystery begins.
As a society, or maybe as a species, we love lists. We have checklists, bucket lists, and wish lists. Ten-best lists and all-time-worst lists. Lists of things to buy, things to get rid of, places to visit, places we’ve been. Numbered lists, alphabetical lists, chronological lists, bulleted lists. Even Santa Claus famously makes a list! If you go to Amazon and search on “books about lists,” you get over 30,000 results — an epic list of lists.
If you were making a list of people who make a lot of lists, you would probably include me. When I go to the supermarket, I have a shopping list. When I’m preparing to travel, I have a packing list. I also keep lists of movies I want to see, museum and gallery shows I want to check out, restaurants and bars I want to try, people I want to invite to my next party or gathering, article ideas for Inconspicuous Consumption, and a lot more.
I used to have even more lists: all the Mets games I’d attended (and whether they won), all the bands I’d seen, all the out-of-print records I was searching for, along with rankings of my favorite movies, bands, foods, Star Trek episodes, and probably several other things I’m forgetting. At one point I also kept a list everyone I’d had sex with — not something I’m particularly proud of, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who’s kept that kind of list.
I grew up in the analog era, so I wrote out most of these lists in notebooks or on legal pads. Nowadays, I keep most of my lists as files on my computer or my phone. In addition, digital culture has created its own forms of list-making. Some of these are literal lists (an eBay watchlist, a Spotify playlist, a Netflix queue), while others are more de facto. My email in-box, for example, is essentially a list of communiqués I need to respond to or act upon, and my open browser tabs form a composite list of websites I’ve been meaning to check out and articles I’m planning to read.
But there’s one kind of list that I still write out by hand. That would be the all-important to-do list — the nagging inventory of tasks and chores I need to address. I’ve kept my to-do lists in the analog realm because physically crossing out a to-do list item after it’s been completed is one of life’s great pleasures. If my to-do list is reaching such an imposing length that it’s stressing me out, I’ll sometimes make it even longer by adding a few routine tasks that I’m about to do anyway, like “Eat breakfast” or “Brush teeth,” just so I can cross those items off the list right away and feel like I’m making some progress.
That brings up a key list-keeping variable: how to mark a completed item. I know some people like to draw a single line, like this. Others employ the checklist method, which entails drawing a little box next to each list item and then either filling in the box or marking it with a check mark or an “X.” But I prefer to use swirly lines to completely obliterate the line item:
Thanks to Halloween, I was recently exposed to a lot more candy imagery than usual, and something jumped out at me that I hadn’t noticed before: The Smarties wrapper features a depiction of a Smarties wrapper (as shown above).
There’s something amusing about a self-referential package design, almost like it’s saying, “Yes, this product is this product.” But the Smarties wrapper design doesn’t quite have the courage of its convictions, because it has only one degree of separation. If they really wanted to do it right, the wrapper design would show a wrapper on a wrapper on a wrapper on a wrapper, ad confectionitum. This hall-of-mirrors design style is known as a recursive image, or an infinite regression.
My favorite recursive package design is for Royal Baking Powder. For over a century, its can design has featured a can on a can on a can:
Recursive imagery is also sometimes known as the Droste Effect. That term refers to the original 1904 package design for Droste Cocoa, which shows a nurse carrying a tray with a tin of Droste, which in turn shows a nurse carrying a tray with a tin of Droste, and so on:
Over the years, several other products have used this type of self-referential package design. Here are some examples:
Log in
