Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Grand Nicholia]

Gallo said he did. Ask him.

I take it your against bathroom desegregation?
What's your argument.

That Gallo said something you think was dumb?
...
I'm not sure how to respond to that.

A bathroom with roughly 60 stalls/urinals could clear out 500 people in 25 minutes.

That's not really a logic flaw, but a question of scale. I could have just as easily said 3 unisex bathrooms with 20 stalls/urinals each could clear 500 people in 25 minutes. Or 5 unisex bathrooms with 12 stalls/urinals each.

That's how math works.

Don't use your fancy mathematics to muddy the issue!

/applejack

My argument is easily findable, go back to the 80's or 90's in this thread. Also, I understand math well, and his solution would leave a remainder, and if more people come, then it becomes an continuous problem.

[Galloism]

A bathroom with roughly 60 stalls/urinals could clear out 500 people in 25 minutes.

That's not really a logic flaw, but a question of scale. I could have just as easily said 3 unisex bathrooms with 20 stalls/urinals each could clear 500 people in 25 minutes. Or 5 unisex bathrooms with 12 stalls/urinals each.

That's how math works.

I want you to prove your mathematical theory Even than, 60 stalls is not enough. It would still leave a remainder, and if more people come since it is such a large stadium, you would need to have a bigger bathroom. Also, 60 stalls is gargantuan!

Yes, that would be a sizable bathroom. Although, in China, there is a 1,000 toilet public restroom.

in any case, you can size the math down by ten, up by ten, or any amount, and remains sound. Unisex bathrooms are nearly twice as efficient as gendered ones when there's a significant gender disparity.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I take it your against bathroom desegregation?
What's your argument.

That Gallo said something you think was dumb?
...
I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Don't use your fancy mathematics to muddy the issue!

/applejack

My argument is easily findable, go back to the 80's or 90's in this thread. Also, I understand math well, and his solution would leave a remainder, and if more people come, then it becomes an continuous problem.

Your claim. You prove it.

Also, nice try in just latching to one thing and conveniently dismiss the rest of a sound post in this stupid effort of yours to ''win''.

[Neutraligon]

A bathroom with roughly 60 stalls/urinals could clear out 500 people in 25 minutes.

That's not really a logic flaw, but a question of scale. I could have just as easily said 3 unisex bathrooms with 20 stalls/urinals each could clear 500 people in 25 minutes. Or 5 unisex bathrooms with 12 stalls/urinals each.

That's how math works.

I want you to prove your mathematical theory Even than, 60 stalls is not enough. It would still leave a remainder, and if more people come since it is such a large stadium, you would need to have a bigger bathroom. Also, 60 stalls is gargantuan!

yes it is, but that does not say that 60 stalls cannot cover 500 people in 25 minutes.

You really need to know what to focus on in a debate, you are focusing on trivial things, you have in fact been doing so this entire time claiming they are loopholes. This is just an example using very simple math. You can change the numbers (scale it down) lets say 6 stalls (which is not all that many) and 50 people. Now what is your complaint about the argument (we have scaled this down by 10)?

[Alvecia]

A bathroom with roughly 60 stalls/urinals could clear out 500 people in 25 minutes.

That's not really a logic flaw, but a question of scale. I could have just as easily said 3 unisex bathrooms with 20 stalls/urinals each could clear 500 people in 25 minutes. Or 5 unisex bathrooms with 12 stalls/urinals each.

That's how math works.

I want you to prove your mathematical theory Even than, 60 stalls is not enough. It would still leave a remainder, and if more people come since it is such a large stadium, you would need to have a bigger bathroom. Also, 60 stalls is gargantuan!

If you had 500 stalls, 500 sinks, and 500 hand dryers with several points of entry then so long as nobody takes more than 25 minutes we're good to go.
Technically possible, even if not realistically feasible*.

Edit: *just seen the 1000 person toilet. Impressive.

[Neutraligon]

I want you to prove your mathematical theory Even than, 60 stalls is not enough. It would still leave a remainder, and if more people come since it is such a large stadium, you would need to have a bigger bathroom. Also, 60 stalls is gargantuan!

If you had 500 stalls, 500 sinks, and 500 hand dryers with several points of entry then so long as nobody takes more than 25 minutes we're good to go.
Technically possible, even if not realistically feasible.

True but this misses the point of the post Gallo was making, which was that assuming the same number of stalls divided differently (ie we have a total of 60 stalls) having a single unisex restroom is more efficient when considering uneven populations (ie more men then women or more women then men) then when the stalls are divided between 2 restrooms that are restricted by gender.

The exact numbers in the example were in essence irrelevant. GN is focusing on the minutia and ignoring the purpose of the post...again.

[Grand Nicholia]

I want you to prove your mathematical theory Even than, 60 stalls is not enough. It would still leave a remainder, and if more people come since it is such a large stadium, you would need to have a bigger bathroom. Also, 60 stalls is gargantuan!

Yes, that would be a sizable bathroom. Although, in China, there is a 1,000 toilet public restroom.

in any case, you can size the math down by ten, up by ten, or any amount, and remains sound. Unisex bathrooms are nearly twice as efficient as gendered ones when there's a significant gender disparity.

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

[Grand Nicholia]

Yes, that would be a sizable bathroom. Although, in China, there is a 1,000 toilet public restroom.

in any case, you can size the math down by ten, up by ten, or any amount, and remains sound. Unisex bathrooms are nearly twice as efficient as gendered ones when there's a significant gender disparity.

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

And, when these 20 people take their turn, another 500 walk in. Your solution, build an expensive addition.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, that would be a sizable bathroom. Although, in China, there is a 1,000 toilet public restroom.

in any case, you can size the math down by ten, up by ten, or any amount, and remains sound. Unisex bathrooms are nearly twice as efficient as gendered ones when there's a significant gender disparity.

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

would you mind typing in a way that is clear. Your post is unreadable.

[Grand Nicholia]

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

would you mind typing in a way that is clear. Your post is unreadable.

You cant really display long division on a ns thread.

[Galloism]

Yes, that would be a sizable bathroom. Although, in China, there is a 1,000 toilet public restroom.

in any case, you can size the math down by ten, up by ten, or any amount, and remains sound. Unisex bathrooms are nearly twice as efficient as gendered ones when there's a significant gender disparity.

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

[Neutraligon]

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

Again why are we focusing on this little bit of minutia and ignoring the original purpose of what you said which still holds true?

[Alvecia]

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20

20 people left unserved.

And, when these 20 people take their turn, another 500 walk in. Your solution, build an expensive addition.

Or, you know, they don't walk in, because that would be 1000 people, not 500.
Or those 480 only take 10 minutes each, leaving 15 minutes for the other 20.

You are arguing the tiniest semantics, ones that can easily be rectified.
You're arguing for no reason. It's be nice if you stopped.

Forget all that. Why are you trying to apply rigid mathematics to a non-rigid real life situation. It's never going to be exact.

[Grand Nicholia]

To everyone.

XX8
60|500
- o
--
50
- o
------
0
--------
500
-480
-------
20


20 people left unserved.

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

[Alvecia]

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

Please don't

This has gotten far too off topic. This math is irrelevant to whether or not segregated bathrooms are a good thing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

Again why are we focusing on this little bit of minutia and ignoring the original purpose of what you said which still holds true?

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

[Grand Nicholia]

Again why are we focusing on this little bit of minutia and ignoring the original purpose of what you said which still holds true?

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

Not if you keep tacking on additions.

[Neutraligon]

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

Please don't

This has generally been how they have...debated...this entire thread. They have made claims and either not backed them up when asked or has replied with non-sequitors. When we have made counter arguments they have either said "nuh uh" or focused on minutia while ignoring the actual argument being made. It is truly incredibly boring.

[Grand Nicholia]

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

Please don't

Am I acting too smart for you?

[Conscentia]

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.
On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

Please don't

[Alvecia]

Please don't

Am I acting too smart for you?

No. What you are discussing is irrelevant to the topic.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

Not if you keep tacking on additions.

Still unable to grasp what Galloism posted, I see.

[Grand Nicholia]

Not if you keep tacking on additions.

Still unable to grasp what Galloism posted, I see.

I do, but his model requires more additions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Again why are we focusing on this little bit of minutia and ignoring the original purpose of what you said which still holds true?

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

[Galloism]

First, 3 minutes is an average not an absolute value - it's not a pod people thing. Some people take longer and some take less, but the average, last I heard, was 3 minutes.

Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes.

We don't enforce the number of users have to be divisible by the number of stalls or they have to hold it.

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

I'll give you a very small example. Tom, Alice, Bob, Frank, and Janice from accounting all want to use a bathroom with 3 stalls, serving one person per minute. On average, this will take 5 minutes.

Janice from accounting is in there for the full five minutes. She's not feeling well.

In the remaining two stalls, tom, bob, alice, and frank each take 2 1/2 minutes each.

Everyone's done in five minutes, and the average use time was three minutes each, despite five not being divisible by 3 (at small scales averages can vary grandly, but at larger scales it's very predictable).