Jump to content

Dingbat of the Day


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, small h said:

Last night I went to The Wayland to see my friend perform in a Loretta Lynn birthday tribute. Which was actually at The Waylon. So all I saw was crowd of raucous 20-somethings drinking Tecate. Sigh.

Back when we once in a while frequented The Wayland, I remember drinking reasonably priced Manhattans at happy hour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My drink was excessively reasonable, in that it was free, because the bartender took pity on dopey-ass me.

26 minutes ago, MitchW said:

once in a while frequented

How does this work? You would go often, but only for intermittent periods of time?

I used to go now & then in The Wayland's early days, and the vibe was VERY different than it is now. A lot more laid back, an older crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I didn’t want to type this twice but see below. Honestly welcome to be told I am wrong (math is not my best). Footnote the MTA is paying consultants fortunes to fix the fact that half of bus users aren’t paying and big numbers of subway users too.

IMG_0376.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Wilfrid said:

Honestly welcome to be told I am wrong (math is not my best).

Well, since you asked...

1)the assumption on your 1st posting is that you'd only get caught once.  The math is that you'd break even if you get caught once every 36 trips & (as you state) make a profit if you get caught only once in all your trips (more than 36).  In fact, the other possibility is that you'd take a loss if you average getting caught more than once in 36 rides.  Since the # of inspectors is unknown and you're already assuming that there are enough to catch you at least once, I'm not sure whether your odds on profit are better than those on loss.

2) other than raising the fine on each infraction, it would be easier for them to institute a graduated fine and increase your cost for each as you get caught.  Clearly, they'd have your name, etc.  They could also move from fines to other penalties based on the # of times an individual is caught.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steve R. said:

Well, since you asked...

1)the assumption on your 1st posting is that you'd only get caught once.  The math is that you'd break even if you get caught once every 36 trips & (as you state) make a profit if you get caught only once in all your trips (more than 36).  In fact, the other possibility is that you'd take a loss if you average getting caught more than once in 36 rides.  Since the # of inspectors is unknown and you're already assuming that there are enough to catch you at least once, I'm not sure whether your odds on profit are better than those on loss.

2) other than raising the fine on each infraction, it would be easier for them to institute a graduated fine and increase your cost for each as you get caught.  Clearly, they'd have your name, etc.  They could also move from fines to other penalties based on the # of times an individual is caught.  

2. is plausible but 1. overlooks the data point that I last saw inspectors maybe once in the past year, if that. I take buses five or six times a week, many I am sure take them daily for their commute. Of course it’s possible in theory that I might be hit by inspectors more than once in every 260 trips, but it’s rational to bet against it.

ETA To put it much more simply, I break even every 36 trips but there is every reason to think I will be caught more like every 260 trips. 💵

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mongo said:

or tax the rich a little more and make public transportation free for all.

It is like our cannabis thing. Either make transit free or make it very hard to travel without paying. Either have legal, licensed weed stores or have a big unlicensed weed business throughout the city.

Both? Just silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a pattern of dingbattery here. I could have mentioned the ban on minors consuming algorithm-driven social media without parent consent. How is that going to be enforced? Letitia James will come up with some rules.

But even crazier, the ban on masks on subways. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of masks are worn for health reasons and not in pursuit of brigandage. Let's forget that five minutes ago we were being mandated to wear masks. The biggest problem is that there is absolutely no way to enforce the rules. Throw thousands of cops at the subway system; as soon as they get on the train, my mask is around my neck. "It's a scarf officer." The only people who comply are people wearing masks for innocent or even good ("I'm immuno-compromised officer") reasons.

The overall pattern seems to be, do something that sounds good and might win some votes, even though it is going absolutely nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wilfrid said:

The overall pattern seems to be, do something that sounds good and might win some votes, even though it is going absolutely nowhere.

Hochul is really one of those people about whom this was written: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...