NATION

PASSWORD

The Eternal Toilet Thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:57 pm

Dyakovo wrote:
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Meh. Look before you sit - simple as. It isn't as though my hands are broken and I can't put it up or down as needed, nor vise versa. That said, the seat is usually down, and I have never made an issue of it being so. We have two males and two females in the house, and it's all more or less worked itself out without any necessary discussions, rules, or requests on the matter. Go fig. *shrugs*

Yeah, see, no-one is saying that the seat should be put back down because women are incapable of doing so themselves... In three out of four possible scenarios (women defecating, men defecating, women urinating) the seat is down, so doing so is simply a matter of courtesy. Why should the seat be left up for the one instance (men urinating) where that is the optimal arrangement?


The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27813
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:27 pm

If you're not a dick then yes, put the seat down. It's common courtesy, geez people...
Traditionalist Catholic, Constitutional Monarchist, Habsburg Nostalgic, Distributist, Disillusioned Millennial.

"In any case we clearly see....That some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class...it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition." -Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

User avatar
Torisakia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16943
Founded: Jun 04, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Torisakia » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:31 pm

Salus Maior wrote:If you're not a dick then yes, put the seat down. It's common courtesy, geez people...

If it was really common courtesy, we would put in blue toilet bowl cleaner in after every flush. :P
You ever woke up one morning and just decided it wasn't one of those days and you were gonna break some stuff?
President: Doug McDowell
Population: 227 million
Tech: MT-PMT
I don't use most NS stats
Ideology: Democracy Manifest
Pro: truth
Anti: bullshit


Latest Headlines
[TNN] A cargo ship belonging to Torisakia disappeared off the coast of Kostane late Wednesday evening. TBI suspects foul play. || Congress passes a T$10 billion aid package for the Democratic Populist rebels in Kostane. To include firearms, vehicles, and artillery.

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27813
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:33 pm

Torisakia wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:If you're not a dick then yes, put the seat down. It's common courtesy, geez people...

If it was really common courtesy, we would put in blue toilet bowl cleaner in after every flush. :P


A bit too time consuming ;P (although, think about it, a toilet that automatically cleans itself with every flush :O )
Traditionalist Catholic, Constitutional Monarchist, Habsburg Nostalgic, Distributist, Disillusioned Millennial.

"In any case we clearly see....That some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class...it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition." -Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

User avatar
Torisakia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16943
Founded: Jun 04, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Torisakia » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:24 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Torisakia wrote:If it was really common courtesy, we would put in blue toilet bowl cleaner in after every flush. :P


A bit too time consuming ;P (although, think about it, a toilet that automatically cleans itself with every flush :O )

Not really, unless you consider water with piss and feces in it to be clean. :P
You ever woke up one morning and just decided it wasn't one of those days and you were gonna break some stuff?
President: Doug McDowell
Population: 227 million
Tech: MT-PMT
I don't use most NS stats
Ideology: Democracy Manifest
Pro: truth
Anti: bullshit


Latest Headlines
[TNN] A cargo ship belonging to Torisakia disappeared off the coast of Kostane late Wednesday evening. TBI suspects foul play. || Congress passes a T$10 billion aid package for the Democratic Populist rebels in Kostane. To include firearms, vehicles, and artillery.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:52 am

Grinning Dragon wrote:O.k., folks, time put aside all other social issues for one that is the most pressing social calamity that we face today, the toilet seat. Yes the toilet seat, up or down?
You know the same tired argument day in and day out, should men be expected to place the seat back down when finished? Where did such a sentiment come from? There isn’t anything mentioned in any rules or etiquette for toilet usage for us men (or some of the adventurous women who can pee standing up), to adhere to, just one of those unwritten mantras perhaps?

I myself am of the opinion, if I can lift it up, surely someone is quite capable of putting it down after use at a public or work place privy. At home, I place the seat and lid down, this isn’t done because of my wife, and it was done to prevent the accidental dropping of things into the toilet when the children used the privy, so I didn’t have to fish a toy, a toothpaste cap, etc., out with my hands or in the worst case scenario, a clogged toilet that would require a plumber.
Up, down, don’t matter?


Half the population need it down for all their uses. All of the population needs it down for half their uses. Basic math says leave the seat where it's needed 75% of the time.

Plus - you can't leave the lid down if the seat is up, and basic hygiene says leave the lid down.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:55 am

Salandriagado wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Yeah, see, no-one is saying that the seat should be put back down because women are incapable of doing so themselves... In three out of four possible scenarios (women defecating, men defecating, women urinating) the seat is down, so doing so is simply a matter of courtesy. Why should the seat be left up for the one instance (men urinating) where that is the optimal arrangement?


The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.


Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:59 am

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.


Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

Where's this "half the time" business coming from? I don't know about the rest of you, but I piss more during the day than I poo.

If you have even one female in the house, though, sitting down becomes more common than standing and so the seat should be set down after standing to pee.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:07 am

Scomagia wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

Where's this "half the time" business coming from? I don't know about the rest of you, but I piss more during the day than I poo.

If you have even one female in the house, though, sitting down becomes more common than standing and so the seat should be set down after standing to pee.


It cancels out. If I urinate four times as often as I defecate... well, so does my wife - so the actual proportionality is irrelevant. Half the time, quarter of the time, ten percent, ninety percent. Half of all the functions are one, half the other - so the seat positions correspond. And if I lift the seat ten times, well, she'll have to lower it eight to ten times, and I'll have to lower it twice.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:56 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.


Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.


No. The optimal system is always, under every circumstance, to not change its position from where it naturally ends up after you use it. By way of example, consider the situation where a man has just had a pee, and the seat is up. If he leaves the seat up, then it might or might not need putting down the next time it's used, with an average of something between 0 and 1 changes, the exact value depending on the people in question. If he does put it down, then either the next person wont change it (1 change), or they will (2 changes). That's an average somewhere between 1 and 2 changes.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9290
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Tahar Joblis » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:01 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.


No. The optimal system is always, under every circumstance, to not change its position from where it naturally ends up after you use it. By way of example, consider the situation where a man has just had a pee, and the seat is up. If he leaves the seat up, then it might or might not need putting down the next time it's used, with an average of something between 0 and 1 changes, the exact value depending on the people in question. If he does put it down, then either the next person wont change it (1 change), or they will (2 changes). That's an average somewhere between 1 and 2 changes.

This is actually correct probabilistic reasoning.

If you suppose that the probability p that the seat needs to be down is 0.75, for example, distributed as per Grave's claimed distribution of toilet usage, you have the following:

  • (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
  • (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

If you wish to minimize the number of seat movements, the efficient method is to move the seat before using the toilet, when the desired state of the toilet is known. Incidentally, in the latter case, the sometimes-standing user(s) still expect to do most of the seat-moving work, doing 0.5 seat movements per usage, while the always-sitting user(s) expect to make only 0.25 seat movements per usage - the sometimes-standing user(s) do more work whenever p > 0.5 for that algorithm.

The seat-moving work is distributed more equally, but will always disfavor whoever makes the most use of the less common seat position.
Last edited by Tahar Joblis on Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129563
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:27 pm

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
No. The optimal system is always, under every circumstance, to not change its position from where it naturally ends up after you use it. By way of example, consider the situation where a man has just had a pee, and the seat is up. If he leaves the seat up, then it might or might not need putting down the next time it's used, with an average of something between 0 and 1 changes, the exact value depending on the people in question. If he does put it down, then either the next person wont change it (1 change), or they will (2 changes). That's an average somewhere between 1 and 2 changes.

This is actually correct probabilistic reasoning.

If you suppose that the probability p that the seat needs to be down is 0.75, for example, distributed as per Grave's claimed distribution of toilet usage, you have the following:

  • (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
  • (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

If you wish to minimize the number of seat movements, the efficient method is to move the seat before using the toilet, when the desired state of the toilet is known. Incidentally, in the latter case, the sometimes-standing user(s) still expect to do most of the seat-moving work, doing 0.5 seat movements per usage, while the always-sitting user(s) expect to make only 0.25 seat movements per usage - the sometimes-standing user(s) do more work whenever p > 0.5 for that algorithm.

The seat-moving work is distributed more equally, but will always disfavor whoever makes the most use of the less common seat position.


but what if one of the women uses one of these half the time?


Image
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Hurdegaryp
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54204
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Hurdegaryp » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:10 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:This is actually correct probabilistic reasoning.

If you suppose that the probability p that the seat needs to be down is 0.75, for example, distributed as per Grave's claimed distribution of toilet usage, you have the following:

  • (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
  • (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

If you wish to minimize the number of seat movements, the efficient method is to move the seat before using the toilet, when the desired state of the toilet is known. Incidentally, in the latter case, the sometimes-standing user(s) still expect to do most of the seat-moving work, doing 0.5 seat movements per usage, while the always-sitting user(s) expect to make only 0.25 seat movements per usage - the sometimes-standing user(s) do more work whenever p > 0.5 for that algorithm.

The seat-moving work is distributed more equally, but will always disfavor whoever makes the most use of the less common seat position.


but what if one of the women uses one of these half the time?


Image

As far as I know, those have been developed mainly for use during music festivals. The mobile toilet cabins often tend to be occupied during such happenings, hence that tool.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129563
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:37 am

Hurdegaryp wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
but what if one of the women uses one of these half the time?


Image

As far as I know, those have been developed mainly for use during music festivals. The mobile toilet cabins often tend to be occupied during such happenings, hence that tool.


Makes sense, those porta-potties can be disgusting. But you can see it for any ambitious woman who wants to improve her aim.
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Cymrea
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8694
Founded: Feb 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cymrea » Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:43 am

Regardless of where the seat begins, up or down, I will make sure it's down when I'm done what I need to do. The ladies seem to think it's important, and I don't have a strong reason not to. For the sake of courtesy and a happier girl, the seat goes down.
Pronounced: KIM-ree-ah. Formerly the Empire of Thakandar, founded December 2002. IIWiki | Factbook | Royal Cymrean Forces
Proud patron of: Halcyon Arms and of their Cymrea-class drone carrier
Storefronts: Ravendyne Defence Industries | Bank of Cymrea | Pork Place BBQ
Puppets: Persica Prime (W40K), Winter Bastion (SW), Atramentar
✎ Member - ℘ædagog | Cheese Sandwich is best Pony | 1870 (2.0) United Kingdom of Cambria
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS OREGON DUCKS

User avatar
Lantrus
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Feb 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Lantrus » Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:25 am

I put it down because I have cats now.

User avatar
Hurdegaryp
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54204
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Hurdegaryp » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:42 pm

Lantrus wrote:I put it down because I have cats now.

I've seen videos of cats using regular toilets as if it was a litter box, but your cats apparently think of your toilet as a drinking bowl, right?
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.

User avatar
DARGLED
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 157
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DARGLED » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:53 pm

If you want me to put it down, you have to put it up.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129563
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:54 pm

Hurdegaryp wrote:
Lantrus wrote:I put it down because I have cats now.

I've seen videos of cats using regular toilets as if it was a litter box, but your cats apparently think of your toilet as a drinking bowl, right?

Nice cool clean water, why not ?
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
The Althing Confederacy
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 392
Founded: Oct 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Althing Confederacy » Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:23 pm

While its simple courtesy to put down the seat in light of equality they can raise the seat when its their turn.
Quid pro quo.

User avatar
Jonjor
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Jonjor » Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:29 pm

Whether you leave it up or put it down isn't going to have a significant impact on my life.

In other words... I could really give a damn less if it is up or down. My family feels the same way.

:clap:

User avatar
The Althing Confederacy
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 392
Founded: Oct 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Althing Confederacy » Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:40 pm

Truly it matters not; talk about a "first world problem" (or more accurately a complete non issue)!
If you find the toilette in an position that offends you than you have psychological issues that need therapy instead of anyone else needing to do anything!

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13660
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:13 pm

Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:Down with lid closed obviously. I'm not an unhygienic weirdo.

pretty much this.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
New Werpland
Senator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Dec 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby New Werpland » Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:14 pm

Leave it down, leaving it up would be raxist and sexist.

User avatar
New Werpland
Senator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Dec 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby New Werpland » Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:17 pm

New Werpland wrote:Leave it down, leaving it up would be raxist and sexist.

Against Germans and women of course.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GMS Greater Miami Shores 1

Advertisement

Remove ads