Why do cashiers…

By -
when giving you your change, first put the bills in your outstretched hand, and then place the coins on top of the bills? This is pretty obviously the wrong order: you can easily grasp the bills with the coins underneath them, but it is very hard to grasp the coins with the bills underneath them.



Comments

  1. Samson Corwell5:42 PM

    Thanks. I'll remember that one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter Cresswell5:58 PM

    When they added up change themselves, they didn't. (Remember? "20, 50, 5 pounds, and 5 makes 10") But now the till adds change for them, they do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bobybuilder10:47 PM

    Because they are young and are counting out the sum they see displayed. They read 16.37 from right to left and pay you right to left. Older cashiers, lacking such displays woul announe you paid 3.63, pay the coins to count up to 4.00 and the bills 5, 10, 15, 20 as they pay out a 1 and three 5s.

    That or an Obama conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous4:43 AM

    Here in Cleveland we have to hand-to-hand change-giving, it's all passed through a slot below the bulletproof glass window.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:26 PM

      Sorry, typo. I meant to say that we "have no hand-to-hand change giving"

      Delete
  5. Scott9:46 PM

    I think they subconsciously do not want to touch your hand. (I have made a similar observation - - certain sorts of people will seem to deliberately touch your hand and other sorts will go out of their way not to.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more