OK this intriguing blog post (HT2MR) has taken up a good 15 minutes of my day. Summary:
You're in an airport, about to go through the security line. You sneeze, which delays you by two seconds. It doesn't just delay you by two seconds, though; it also delays everyone waiting in line behind you. And everyone who will show up while the people currently in line haven't gone through yet. In fact, if you assume that the queue is never empty...we're talking about arbitrarily large quantities of wasted time.
Some of the responses at MR pointed out holes in this logic. There are all sorts of ways that eventually people behind the sneezer end up at the same position, at the same time, that they would have in the absence of the sneeze. E.g. if the sneezer is behind someone else and the line stops moving for a few seconds, then obviously his sneeze does nothing. And even if his sneeze delayed himself and 30 people behind him, so long as there would have been a few seconds when the line weren't moving forward for the 31st person, then the sneeze did nothing.
I think this is probably "the" solution in this case to deal with the apparent paradox. However, I'm wondering if there are other, deeper flaws with the logic. For example, suppose that the line always moves, and is never empty. Then it seems that the sneeze is infinitely costly, and this just seems crazy. After all, it's not as if people start arriving 400 hours late to their destination, so something is screwy.
At first I was tempted to deal with this by saying, "Oh, it's because this 'infinite' cost is dispersed among so many different people. If you have an arbitrarily large number of people suffering a tiny cost, then you obviously get arbitrarily large aggregate costs. No paradox."
But that's not good enough. Suppose that the queue is never empty, but that it consists of the same 10,000 people who fly very often. Then you get these arbitrarily large delays spread among a finite group of people.
Indeed, if our sneezer himself will end up at the end of the queue before it empties out, his sneeze will delay HIM many times over.
So something is really screwy with this logic. And I don't think we should dispose of it with appeal to time preference. That's a definite complication and it mitigates whatever the "total cost" is of the sneeze, but again it seems to be missing what (must be) fundamentally wrong with the analysis.
One thing that occurs to me is the notion of "waste." After all, everything that happens in the queue slows people down. When they were deciding how much time to allow for the queue, they presumably took into account real world possibilities, such as people sneezing and elderly people walking slowly. So it seems to me that a guy sneezing on January 1 couldn't possibly mess up the plans of people traveling on March 15, if for no other reason than that these later travelers would take the sneeze's effects into account when driving to the airport etc.
It's not just abortion where these euphemisms bug me either. I think it is sometimes OK to euthanize your pet, but... you did not "...
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...