|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 10, 2016 10:35:01 GMT
One line serving multiple checkouts with the agreement you have max two customers per checkout and then only when there is space on the belt to start loading the next customers goods, would be better in my estimation, than the usual scramble to "would it be better to wait behind this slowpoke or change lanes" It would also benefit from the next customer to be able to get to a newly opened checkout rather than the mad scramble from multiple lines to get there first and "I have been waiting longer than you" arguments that sometimes ensue from newly opened checkouts.
World slowest customer strangely co-insides with the day of the week Pensions are being paid. I have no idea why.
That was not ageist either, because I have had equal encounters with YOUNG people being slow on that day as well...
There is just one day a week you know NOT to go to supermarkets, its Wednesday around here, unless its early morning or late at night, because you just know the slow are out on that day.
But we have the phrase "Get in your way day" for those customers, the ones who pull trolleys sideways down an isle thus preventing anyone getting past?.. I am sure they know what they are doing and do it on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 10, 2016 14:30:24 GMT
So, I think we have a great idea with for improving the cue: A modified serpentine. Each checkout has one customer being handled while one more is cued. When person #1 leaves, #2 is checked while #3 is cued and so on. This would remove the bias resulting from the time needed to travel from the line to the register.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2016 14:44:00 GMT
If you take away the travel time of the serpentine que, the long-term average wait time will be the same for both systems. You're then down to which one the customers prefer.
Personally, I prefer the individual lines. I would rather be allowed to make my own decision based on how long the line is and how many items each customer has in their cart ahead of me, then being forced into a situation in which I have no control. If I end up behind someone needing a price check or a mislabeled item, then that's fine. It was my decision. But waiting in a serpentine line puts me behind EVERY price check and mislabeled product.
I'll leave the serpentine lines for people unable or unwilling to make basic decisions in life.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2016 15:18:45 GMT
here's an idea. put enough cashiers on duty to have no more than three people in the line behind each register.
naah, that'll never catch on.
as for why pension day (social security check/welfare check day) is the slow customer day, it's because of the law of averages. when you have 10 people shopping you have less odds of getting stuck behind a slow one than if you have 100
our amusement parks typically have a serpentine leading to individual lines for seats on the ride. once you reach the head of the serpentine, you get to choose your row, and you can go for a short line or a preferred seat. seems a serpentine lead-in with room for two or three at the registers would still allow people to choose their register without having to commit early.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2016 15:21:29 GMT
If you take away the travel time of the serpentine que, the long-term average wait time will be the same for both systems. You're then down to which one the customers prefer. Personally, I prefer the individual lines. I would rather be allowed to make my own decision based on how long the line is and how many items each customer has in their cart ahead of me, then being forced into a situation in which I have no control. If I end up behind someone needing a price check or a mislabeled item, then that's fine. It was my decision. But waiting in a serpentine line puts me behind EVERY price check and mislabeled product. I'll leave the serpentine lines for people unable or unwilling to make basic decisions in life. so what you're saying is with the immediate lane choice, you get to feel like you're cutting ahead of the slowpokes?
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2016 15:43:08 GMT
If you take away the travel time of the serpentine que, the long-term average wait time will be the same for both systems. You're then down to which one the customers prefer. Personally, I prefer the individual lines. I would rather be allowed to make my own decision based on how long the line is and how many items each customer has in their cart ahead of me, then being forced into a situation in which I have no control. If I end up behind someone needing a price check or a mislabeled item, then that's fine. It was my decision. But waiting in a serpentine line puts me behind EVERY price check and mislabeled product. I'll leave the serpentine lines for people unable or unwilling to make basic decisions in life. so what you're saying is with the immediate lane choice, you get to feel like you're cutting ahead of the slowpokes? no, what I am saying is I like to make my own decisions and I'll live with the consequences. I don't need other people making those decisions for me. And that pertains to pretty much everything, not just shopping checkout lines. I am fully capable of running my own life, thank you. That said, if A store elects to use the serpentine cue, I can live with that. I can see the need to protect the idiots that can't make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 10, 2016 15:54:06 GMT
If you take away the travel time of the serpentine que, the long-term average wait time will be the same for both systems. You're then down to which one the customers prefer. Personally, I prefer the individual lines. I would rather be allowed to make my own decision based on how long the line is and how many items each customer has in their cart ahead of me, then being forced into a situation in which I have no control. If I end up behind someone needing a price check or a mislabeled item, then that's fine. It was my decision. But waiting in a serpentine line puts me behind EVERY price check and mislabeled product. I'll leave the serpentine lines for people unable or unwilling to make basic decisions in life. That gave me a thought...which can be rare these days. What if the MBs had the 'shoppers' record the time that they were sent to the register rather than the time that they arrived at the register? After all, this was a measure of how long you waited in line, which shouldn't (technically) include the travel time - since, at that point, you're (technically) no longer waiting in line.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2016 15:59:10 GMT
to be honest, I am more interested in measures to stop the queue from obstructing the front of the shopping area, than in getting through marginally faster.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Feb 11, 2016 15:32:47 GMT
So, I think we have a great idea with for improving the cue: A modified serpentine. Each checkout has one customer being handled while one more is cued. When person #1 leaves, #2 is checked while #3 is cued and so on. This would remove the bias resulting from the time needed to travel from the line to the register. I suspect part of the positive reviews the serpentine got was that as soon as you got to the checkstand, the cashier was ready to take care of your order. With your arrangement, a customer could still be stuck waiting while a price check is called / ID for alcohol or tobacco purchase is checked / coupons are sorted out / a cashier old enough to sell that booze and tobacco is called for / fill in delay here.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2016 15:53:49 GMT
So, I think we have a great idea with for improving the cue: A modified serpentine. Each checkout has one customer being handled while one more is cued. When person #1 leaves, #2 is checked while #3 is cued and so on. This would remove the bias resulting from the time needed to travel from the line to the register. I suspect part of the positive reviews the serpentine got was that as soon as you got to the checkstand, the cashier was ready to take care of your order. With your arrangement, a customer could still be stuck waiting while a price check is called / ID for alcohol or tobacco purchase is checked / coupons are sorted out / a cashier old enough to sell that booze and tobacco is called for / fill in delay here. yes, there is still some risk, but the risk of being behind multiple slowdowns is reduced, and if people can choose to skip joining a line behind an obvious problem child, then people can even minimize that risk.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 15, 2016 21:29:31 GMT
Whether the serpentine que was faster or not was in my opinion not the most interesting part of the test. The fact that people gave the serpentine a better satisfaction score was. It would seem to suggest that we as human beings are fine with waiting a little longer, as long as we're not waiting any longer than anyone else. The perception of fairness is apparently more important to most people than efficiency.
As for the zombie thing, I had issues with Jamie's technique. As Ironhold pointed out, why get so close that a jam or reload scenario leaves you vulnerable? The whole point of a gun is that you don't need to get into close combat. You can do things from a distance.
Another thing was Jamie's overall tactical handling of his weapons. Why lower the gun after every shot when there are multiple targets? Keep it up and just move it from one target to the next. You're wasting precious time on unneeded movements.
Both these things were so incredibly obvious that my 9-year old pointed them out!
Another thing that they didn't factor into Adam's test with the axe was contact. They may have gotten the swing right, but as anyone who's ever handled an axe will tell you, that thing will get stuck from time to time. If you drive an axe into someone's skull, they won't be standing for long. If the axe gets into the skull deep enough, just the motion of the body falling will give frontal/backwards/sideways pressure on the axe head and you won't be able to just pull it straight up and out. Especially not when you're on zombie number 30 and starting to get bloody and tired.
I still call bogus on this. Anyone who's halfway tactically proficient with a gun will outperform someone with an axe. The way Jamie was handling those guns, you'd think he wasn't taking any of it seriously because it was all just pretend anyway.
Oh, wait... It was.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 24, 2016 6:57:22 GMT
Axe, or sword....
I know it didnt come up, but, which would be better?.
I have the big axe for wood chopping, and in that, its good for what it does. But would I be using that in such a fight?
"If I had access to" a good long sword, maybe even a double hander, much bigger than a Gladius, maybe even a Claymore, double edges swings both ways and the right and proper training with one, with good weight, which would you put your money on as most effective?...
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 24, 2016 7:23:42 GMT
I have a big questions on this... I support that statement, with some limited experience, and know I could do better.
Assuming you have a reasonable supply of ammunition of course. ONE weapon?... I have heard that you should choose to carry as many as you can get hold of and comfortably carry?... I think I like that idea, carry two at least and as much ammo as you can?..
And no, I am no tactical expert, not have I had "Front line" military experience such as a massed attack...
You are facing a hoard of Zombie. You know they are coming, and have had time to prepare... Dont matter how that affects the thing, but, even if its a massed attack by an army with Body armour, your aiming for the head, so its kind of similar requirements I suppose?...
Location location location... you would want to be trying to get somewhere where you can narrow down the field of attackers to something you can manage. And have planned an escape route that "they" dont know about....
Anyway... You have a reliably good semi-automatic say something like the AK forty seven?..(Or better...) You would not be using a single shot rifle by choice against a hoard if you had a semi-auto available, unless you can swap from a sniper type to a machine gun as they close in?.. Firstly at extreme range of accuracy, start with a few sniper shots to take down the leaders or whoever you can. Take the outside ones down that may force the rest to start grouping together?.. Then as they get closer, and possibly start to group together in numbers, aim at head hight and "spray-and-pray".... Surely that would be a tactical advantage for an early strike to take out a few at distance before they get too close?... it may even slow down the main advance of you drop a few under their feet that they have to climb over?.. On a "hoard" of more than say 20 close grouped assailants, if you were half way proficient and didnt go over their heads, surely thats an occasion where "You just cant miss"?... is that worth a try?... Then as they closer, small short bursts at multiple targets as they close in, taking the closest first.
I would hope that you had reloaded at least twice before they even got within their own striking distance.?..
"Conserve ammunition" Yeah, sure, when you are down to your last magazine. Other than that, its kill as many as possible?. At a distance that gives you time to prepare....
The thing about Firearms is the lethal distance they are effective at. Also the quick reload, you dont have to be 100% accurate if you miss the one in front, good chance you get the one behind, and one less is one less?...
When you are facing say 50 to 1 of unarmed not the quickest off the block semi intelligent assailants that are not armed, the odds should be in your favour....
Again, I am no tactical expert, I have not the experience of facing zombie. But I suspect that if I survived "the first wave", I would get it very quickly... And sure as hell I would intend to survive the first half dozen waves....
Of course if anyone has a better plan, lets hear it. This is going to be an evolution thing, we find out what works by trying it.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 3, 2016 7:46:29 GMT
spoiler alert The show aired in UK last night... I will see the whole thing again tonight, because I fell asleep during the episode...
I was tired, but the whole thing on Zombies was disinteresting to me. I did wake up to hear the final results that an Axe can chop 10 more people that a gun can shoot..... I aint having that one.
I will re-watch it and see why, but the results at this point dont make sense?...
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 3, 2016 9:01:09 GMT
Anyway... You have a reliably good semi-automatic say something like the AK forty seven?..(Or better...) You would not be using a single shot rifle by choice against a hoard if you had a semi-auto available, unless you can swap from a sniper type to a machine gun as they close in?.. Firstly at extreme range of accuracy, start with a few sniper shots to take down the leaders or whoever you can. Take the outside ones down that may force the rest to start grouping together?.. Then as they get closer, and possibly start to group together in numbers, aim at head hight and "spray-and-pray".... Surely that would be a tactical advantage for an early strike to take out a few at distance before they get too close?... it may even slow down the main advance of you drop a few under their feet that they have to climb over?.. On a "hoard" of more than say 20 close grouped assailants, if you were half way proficient and didnt go over their heads, surely thats an occasion where "You just cant miss"?... is that worth a try?... Then as they closer, small short bursts at multiple targets as they close in, taking the closest first. I would hope that you had reloaded at least twice before they even got within their own striking distance.?.. "Conserve ammunition" Yeah, sure, when you are down to your last magazine. Other than that, its kill as many as possible?. At a distance that gives you time to prepare.... The thing about Firearms is the lethal distance they are effective at. Also the quick reload, you dont have to be 100% accurate if you miss the one in front, good chance you get the one behind, and one less is one less?... When you are facing say 50 to 1 of unarmed not the quickest off the block semi intelligent assailants that are not armed, the odds should be in your favour.... I think you tactics of picking off leaders and outside ones forcing them to group together presumes that the zombies act as a coordinated group rather than individuals that are all heading towards the same goal and randomly move towards it even sometimes hindering each other to get to that goal. I know it depends on which source for the zombies you use, in some they can be thought of as processing a 'group mind'' in others they just all move towards warm meat.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 4, 2016 7:48:32 GMT
Re-Watched it last night.
I am concerned about the periodic "Jam" problems he had with paint-ball guns.
Is that a thing with paintball things?...
Only 7 rounds per weapon....
I have to ask, the second test when he went up armed to da teef, wouldnt that be more realistic when facing a "hoard"?... You know they are coming, you have raided the local gunsmiths, you would have taken a couple of machine guns?... you are what they would call "prepared"?...
But then again, this is a post apocalyptic fantasy world, I suppose anything could happen.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 4, 2016 15:25:26 GMT
Re-Watched it last night. I am concerned about the periodic "Jam" problems he had with paint-ball guns. Is that a thing with paintball things?... Only 7 rounds per weapon.... I have to ask, the second test when he went up armed to da teef, wouldnt that be more realistic when facing a "hoard"?... You know they are coming, you have raided the local gunsmiths, you would have taken a couple of machine guns?... you are what they would call "prepared"?... But then again, this is a post apocalyptic fantasy world, I suppose anything could happen. a well maintained gun is more reliable, but at the same time, ammunition doesn't manufacture itself. so I would hardly consider their testing to be definitive, but it does show that a lone gunman may not be as untouchable as the image portrays.
|
|