Thursday, November 23, 2017

Transportation between floors in buildings: combining hop-on-anytime with small horizontal footprint

Convenience plays a massive role in our behavior.  Often if there's the tiniest amount of friction, and the effort required rises above a fairly low bar, we won't bother.  Or at least this post is going to assume that's the case.

Here's a way convenience impacts our use of space, which suggests a new mode of specialised transport between floors in buildings.  For the sake of simplicity I'll consider this in the context of shopping.

Lets consider shopping spaces that are distributed over multiple floors.  There are three ways of transporting people between floors: stairs, escalators (I'll lump inclined travelators in with these), and lifts.

These have various trade-offs.  Stairs require the most physical effort, while escalators and lifts require very little.  In normal circumstances, stairs and escalators don't require any waiting to use, whereas a lift will typically require a wait before getting in.  Stairs and lifts can be packed into fairly small horizontal spaces.  For lifts it's basically the horizontal dimensions of the lift itself.  A spiral staircase, or a 'square' staircase (where each flight keeps making a 90 degree turn), can be fairly compact in their horizontal dimensions.  Escalators tend to require a fair amount of horizontal space (they're lengthy).

As far as convenience goes, we can take stairs out of the picture (despite how good they might be for people's health).  That leaves escalators and lifts.  Escalators are very convenient as you can always just hop on them, but they take up a fair bit of horizontal space.  Lifts take up little horizontal space, but you often have to wait to use one. 

In terms of speed, escalators are adequate as long as you only have a few floors to traverse, whereas lifts can be much faster if you have many floors to traverse.

So for a typical multi-floor shopping center, escalators will be your main between-floor transport system.  There's only a handful of floors, so the speed of escalators is adequate, and it's just much more convenient to be able to hop on at any time (plus there's ample room for trolleys).

But what about smaller multi-floor buildings, like you might find on the main street of a smaller town?  Ones that don't have room for escalators (or where it's not worth using the amount of room it would require for an escalator).  (Of course, cost is another factor, but we'll leave that aside for the moment).  They could install a lift, but I think the friction of having to wait for the lift would be too much for the average customer. (And the friction of stairs is going to be too much to have a different set of shops on the second floor).  I suspect this is a contributing factor to why multiple floors often aren't utilised for stores in such situations.  Sometimes you might have the one small store over two floors, but you are less likely to see separate stores on the second or third floor.

What would ideal would be something that has the hop-on-anytime property of escalators but which takes up a smaller amount of horizontal space than they do.

Think of this as setting the requirements for a kind of design challenge.

One design possibility would be where there were vertical shafts running between floors, one carrying platforms up and another carrying platforms down.  The platforms would be like a lightweight form of a lift.  Instead of being an enclosed capsule, they'd just be platforms with railings.  The railings would be designed to fold up, so that so multiple such platforms could be stored in a recessed fashion at each floor, so a person can pretty much always walk up and use one.  They'd be stored there folded up and automatically unfolded for use.

(Another possibility would be a tightly-wound spiral escalator.  As in, a spiral escalator with a small circumference. Spiral escalators exist, but they are quite large, with shallow curvatures.  I suspect a problem with a tightly-wound spiral escalator would be that, even if it could be engineered, it would be a bit disorienting for the rider to be rotating so fast).

Of course, that's just a rough bit of speculation, and the big question is whether a practical system meeting these requirements (of hop-on-anytime and small horizontal footprint) could actually be built.  Another big question is whether it could be cost effective.

What interests me is, if they could, whether it could change the way we use space.  Could it increase the convenience enough such that there would be viable uses of spaces that otherwise would not be viable because of not being sufficiently convenient?  I can imagine applications like making use of multiple floors in smaller retail spaces, that otherwise just wouldn't be convenient enough.  Or perhaps a more convenient way to get between floors in smaller-horizontal-space areas could help people in companies spanning multiple floors communicate and collaborate more effectively.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Fact checking and linking to supporting evidence

With all the talk about 'fake news' and the spreading of lies and misinformation on social media, the idea of fact checking has been thrown about a bit.

In this post I'd like to try to situate fact checking within a broader context.  I've spoken before about "Improving the spread of truth in the information ecosystem".  The basic idea is that we want to find ways to help the truth spread, and to hinder the spread of falsehoods.  In that post I gave some fact checking sites as examples of initiatives in this area.

To me, what fact checking is about is trying to enable people to create explicit connections -- links -- between claims and evidence.  Fact checking is where you're doing so to check someone else's claim, to see whether it holds up.  But connecting claims and evidence also includes where you're using evidence to substantiate your own claims.

The ideal situation, in my view, would be where whenever someone makes a claim, they also try and link to sources that substantiate that claim.  Where the default is to always try to show evidence.

This, of course, would not be easy to achieve.  But it's worthwhile considering how we can make it as easy as possible to for this to be done.

What I'm suggesting might sound like the way that scientific papers cite sources.  I actually think we can do better than this.  1) usually whole papers are cited, and these are often too granular.  You have to dig around in the paper to find the bit specifically related to the claim being made, and do a bit of reverse engineering to see why/how that claim was being arrived at in the paper.  2) papers aren't laid out with the intention of clearly showing the evidence supporting the specific claim.

I'm thinking of a setup where a person could link to a web-page that is specifically devoted to the evidence for a particular claim, which might link to other such pages for sub-claims.

The end-goal would be having substantial numbers of people -- volunteers and those supported by institutions -- focused on creating such pages.  And where there was a norm whereby people would always try to link to substantiating evidence whenever they make a non-trivial claim (where you'll at least feel uncomfortable when you don't do this).

Of course the big question is, how could we get to such an end-goal?  I don't think it'd be easy.  I think if it were to happen, it would be drawn-out process, involving small, piece-meal steps forwards.

Momentum would need to grow.  I can imagine more and more datasets and statistics being put online, and then people utilising these to create pages showing the evidence for specific claims based upon these (ideally, and whenever possible, they would show their claims as being the results of queries on the datasets, queries that could easily be independently verified).  The more that such a thing is done, the more the idea of doing such a thing has the potential to spread.

Sources of such information would need to establish their integrity.  So they are known as being a trustworthy source of evidence on claims.  Ideally they would be non-partisan, though that obviously couldn't practically be done for all claims.

In addition to making the information available that shows the support for particular claims, we'd also need to make it much easier to find and make use of this information.  To lower the friction involved in linking to it.

This is a large topic in itself, but here is an example of what I'm thinking of: auto-suggesting evidence sources and particular claims, through the use of machine learning.  Think of a particular forum where people discuss a topic, such as politics.  It might be a sub-reddit on politics.  A machine learning tool could analyze the text of all the discussions on the forum to get a sense of the kinds of topics discussed, and to get an idea of what evidence sources are relevant to the forum.  Whenever a forum member goes to write a comment, it could use the context of the comment they are replying to (and what it is replying to, and so on), plus the comment-text the member has written so far, to suggest possible claims (and evidence pages for them) that the member might be making.

I have no idea how far away we are from a sufficiently-effective tool of this sort -- it's just meant as an illustration of how we might be able to lower the friction for linking to supporting evidence.

Friday, October 13, 2017

"It came out a long time ago" doesn't make spoilers ok

Just a quick rant.  I've often heard spoilers being justified on things that came out a long time ago, because they came out a long time ago.  But there are just so many tv shows, books, movies, games, etc that have been released over the years.  Even if you only count the classics.  There's so many that for any one work, no matter how old, there's always going to be many people who would like to have had experienced it but who haven't yet.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Tropes in fictional TV and movies that damage societal views

I enjoy watching fictional TV shows and movies, but I know that like anything, they have positive and negative effects.  On the negative side, they often present a distorted view of reality, and I think some of these have quite a negative effect on society.

Grief is overt

Most of the times when a fictional TV show or movie shows grief, the person is clearly distraught.  You can see the sadness or deep loss in them.

But grief doesn't work like that.  There's no one way it effects people.  People don't necessarily appear sad.  They can, at the times you might see them, even seem a bit happy or light-hearted.

I think that TV shows and movies have taught the public to expect grief to be like how they portray it.  The average person surely sees many more depictions of grief on the screen than they do in real-life.
When the reality of grief comes up against the perception that grief is overt, the people are seen as callous or just not grieving like they should be.  In the cases like of parents whose children have gone missing, it can lead to suspicion of them and witch hunts. 

related: Small-Screen Grief: 10 TV Shows That Got It Right | tv tropes: Five Stages of Grief

Attractiveness correlates with character

Attractive people are good, ugly or unusual-looking people are bad.

This one is fairly obvious, but the trope seems so pervasive that surely it has to have a big influence on how people are perceived in the real-world.  To rewind a bit, that perception of people probably has an innate basis, but even still, having it reinforced so much in media can surely only make it worse.

related: tv tropes: Beauty Equals Goodness | tv tropes: Evil Makes You Ugly

Straw Vulcan

The Straw Vulcan is a straw-man portrayal of intelligence, named after the Star Trek character Spock, who is of the highly-logical Vulcan race.  The term comes from tv tropes.

In the Straw Vulcan, intelligence and rationality are equated with rigidity and narrowness in the way the person thinks, and an inability to make use of intuition or perceive emotional realities. 

Sheldon, in the Big Bang theory, is another full embodiment of this.

It's a pervasive trope in media, and I suspect it has done a lot of harm to our society.  I suspect it has fueled a lot of anti-intellectualism, and has done a lot to make intelligence seem unattractive and uncool, which I think in turn has pushed a lot of people away from striving to be smart.

Gladly, there does seem to have been a fairly recent trend to present intelligence in a more positive light, though it doesn't seem like there's been much of an attempt to kill the Straw Vulcan. 

Individual agency is the cause of good and bad things

This one can be summarised as "good guys and bad guys".  Bad things happen because a bad person its doing it with bad intent.  The good guy does something to make things better.  A person seeing this play out again and again as they're growing up are, I think, going to get a pretty distorted view of how the world works.

Our societies are complex systems.  There are aggregate effects.  Anything that institutions do to try and address issues will always be imperfect means with unintended consequences.  There are structural causes to what happen.  All of these things mean that major problems usually aren't caused by individuals, and are often not caused by ill-intent.  And that also means that solutions often aren't what you'd equate with "doing good".  They might be making changes to the physical or policy infrastructure that society runs on.  They might be technology changes.

In the picture painted by the many many hours of fictional TV shows and movies we are exposed to in our lives, these impersonal causes basically don't exist.

EDIT, Mar 2019: another damaging trope is 'with enough effort, anything can be overcome'.  Sure, that one sounds good.  It's encouraging effort and fortitude.  The problem is that it's not true.  Sometimes things can't be overcome just by putting in enough effort.  Some chronic health conditions, for example.  The reason it's damaging is that it leads people to assume that others just need to "put in the effort" and that if they aren't or aren't overcoming their issue that the fault must be their own for not putting in enough effort.  Or there can be systemic, structural problems that no amount of effort (in the obvious places) are going to really address.  Where to solve the problems you need to look hard at what their source is, rather than thinking of the problem just in terms of trying hard to fight it.


Here's a list of various other ways fictional accounts distort reality.