Everyday ‘Placebo Buttons’ Create Semblance of Control
99percentinvisible.org
99percentinvisible.org
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/nyregion/soapbox-a-little-...
http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/144197004989/the-nypd-was-sy...
I guess that's open to abuse with people painting active hydrants to make them appear inactive and open up more parking spaces.
The covering of them mentioned by nommm-nommm might actually work, though.
If marking them would generate any revenue it would be done very quickly. As it is not marking them generates tons of parking ticket revenue, so that's what's done.
If you don't enforce the parking law for the non-functioning hydrants, people may become complacent or confused and start parking in front of necessary ones.
But removing them isn't worth it either, because it's expensive, and there's no particular need to. (The article says they can afford it, but even so, there are probably better uses for the money.)
How about creating legal parking places? Obviously some of those parking places were heavily desired.
Other key switches may include "independent operation" (decouples that elevator from the group controller) and "attended" (enables buttons Up, Down, and Non-Stop).
When moving in or out of a multi-elevator building, ask to borrow the service elevator key. That's what it's for.
Crosswalk buttons - When traffic through an intersection (both pedestrian and vehicle) merits "knowing" when pedestrians want to cross, the buttons are considered. When such information will not change the flow, they are not. At some point in time if the cycle of walk/dont walk red/yellow/green will not differ based on button input, you can stop considering the button input. However, we get into situations in the Bay Area where the button is important and people who don't push it never see a walk sign. So sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Elevator buttons have a similar issues. There are regulations about how quickly after the doors open that the doors can close, and there are mechanisms that control the speed of closure (also regulated for safety reasons). Few people feel consider the door open button is a placebo because they can see, "Yup the doors are still open" but they feel that close is a placebo because the doors don't immediately start to close when it is pushed.
And office thermostats. Having been responsible for a company move, and consequently dealing with the landlord of the old and new space. The HVAC system was always divided into "zones". The thermostats were placed based on some previous zone. So when you reconfigure the space, new thermostats get added (if necessary) but old ones don't get removed. The old ones are either useful in the new configuration, or not useful now, but may be at a future date. Since it was $300+ to add a thermostat into the space, the landlord kept all thermostats that exist, so that future tenents might be able to use one that wasn't needed before but is already installed, saving $300+ in tenant improvement costs.
Also, here in Japan nearly all elevator close buttons work instantly
That's not to say that sensor-controlled intersections which take the crosswalk button into consideration do not exist- there are far too many intersections which I haven't the time nor the inclination to tour.
Ultimately, my point is this: simply because all the media on placebo buttons dwells on New York City does not mean similar devices don't exist elsewhere. I bet here, folks just don't care; they press a button and eventually get through a light.
A button can speed up the cycle, similar to induction loops on low traffic density intersections (or that sometimes only work at night).
The standard modes are called "pre-timed", "partially actuated", and "fully actuated".[1] In pre-timed mode, the pedestrian buttons don't do anything, but there's a WALK period somewhere in the cycle. In "fully actuated", you never get a WALK without pushing the button.
[1] http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop06006/chapter_7....
Definitely not all of England. I was just in Greater Manchester, where the press of a button would often instantly change the light.
Independent crossings use the button, but crossings that are part of a road junction may ignore it.
There's also T-junctions here that toggle between multiple roads that insert a pedestrian crossing into the cycle when the button is pressed, otherwise they'll just toggle between the roads as normal.
Then we also have Y-junctions where the pedestrian light is green when the opposite road light is green. The buttons might speed up the cycle there but I've never seen any evidence of it doing so.
Handily it means if the light is on it will change.
I've never seen a traffic light in New Zealand that won't change it cycle in some way during at least some part of the day when that button is pressed. During peak hours there are many traffic lights where the cycle doesn't change at all when you press the button, other than show the walk.
Most other traffic lights modify their cycle slightly, with red turning lights to prevent drivers from turning across the crossing pedestrians.
The button is only truly important outside of peak hours, when the traffic lights operate on sensors. And the cycles for cars are often so short that a pedestrians can't actually cross the road in time. So pressing the button not long makes the cycle change, but lengthens the cycle.
("office ladies" is my translation of what the customer actually said. I'm not trying to be sexist, although the customer had no problem being so.)
“Doing something is better than doing nothing, so people believe. And when you go to press the button your attention is on the activity at hand. If I’m just standing at the corner I may not even see the light change, or I might only catch the last part of the change, in which case I could put myself in danger.”
Probably the most condescending and patronizing statement I've heard in a long time.
"Naturally, a number of street art projects have popped up around the humorous futility of pedestrians pressing placebo buttons:"
I think the depths of the satire on these is lost on the author.
It's just citizens putting up something funny. Why is there a need to attribute it to something more deeply rooted in the psyche?
I think a lot of these stickers are a form of graffiti with a political agenda, of thinking for yourself and noticing you're losing your autonomy. Some people scream it and throw things, others use satire to prod us into action.
Our brains may be wired with complexities we don't understand, but I know the difference between having a moment of enjoyment for myself, vs. doing something with an ulterior motive of pretending to be a genius making grandiose remarks about civilization as a whole.
More people need to remember what it's like to be an innocent child who, in such a case, would instantly proclaim "a button that doesn't do anything... whyyyy?", instead of going full-on adult with a cynical point of view. For fuck's sake, stop overthinking every single moment in life. It's depressing.
Of course he never hooked up the controls to actually do anything and the nicely balanced gameplay was entirely due to the decisions he hard coded.
Current cars do have placebos though. Some newer sports cars would play engine sounds thru the speakers to make users feel more power.
Classic example:
I hope uber will have some way of adjusting the route. I can tell the driver that the address is misplaced on google maps, or that a specific one-way is always blocked, but I can't say the same to the car unfortunately.
No, this will become something you pay for (unfortunately). Higher priority in the traffic routing algorithm will go to those who pay more.
Doesn't this require for there to be only one self-driving car operator? What if there are multiple competitors that all route high priority traffic in a way that ends up making a route congested?
They're probably likely to collude, but it could still be an issue.
I wonder when exactly in business the "experience" of something became more important than the actual thing - but this pattern seems to become increasingly more common:
It's more important that customers feel valued than that they are actually valued; it's more important that food looks fresh and tastes nutritious than that it actually is; it's more important that a device has a high-quality exterior than that it has high-quality specs; etc, etc.
I feel this kind of thinking is the source of many frustrations and even health problems. I find it sad if it's now apparently so widespread that papers take the assumption for granted.
That said...road side pong!
> Late for work in Manhattan, you push the crosswalk button and curse silently at the slowness of the signal change.
In other parts of NYC maybe, but in most of Manhattan I can't imagine anyone doing this more than a few times. They'd be more likely to just "jaywalk." Signal phases are very short and "jaywalking" is so accepted and normal that it seems odd here to have a word for it.
The real irony is that (so I was told) "jay walking" comes from an old derogatory term, "jay" meaning someone from the country not familiar with the city. But in Manhattan, it's the other way around -- the tourists are usually the ones that scrupulously _don't_ jaywalk.
Really? I always wondered where the term came from, the best explanation I could think of is that the original offense was walking most of the way across the street and then doubling back (so walking in a 'j' shape) which would confuse traffic and lead to more collisions.
To make it better the term really came into its own because the automobile industry ran various PR campaigns using it in order to combat the many campaign groups who were against bringing large numbers of vehicles to the city.
Pretty standard smear campaign.
At work without headphones so can't verify if this clip covers the origin of the term, but the whole episode does.
The last page clearly states that their bookings are confirmed and have been emailed to them, but during usability trials we found many people wanted another button to confirm completion. So now we have a "Finished" button that simply takes them back to our home page.
In many many parts of NYC, pedestrian traffic dominates cars, yet signals and streets continue to give preference to cars and other motorized vehicles. If there is an overflowing sidewalk full of people waiting for a signal it's a testament to the 1960s era thinking that permeates DOTs planning and construction.
I don't know about NYC, but in SF this is not necessarily the case. Signal timing can be optimized for pedestrian rates of speed, or bicycles. Planners do think about this stuff.
So sometimes they may work, but the change may be subtle enough to be easy missed.
Also it may make sense to rely on sensors/buttons when there are few people, but once your city gets too big and has constant foot traffic, fixing the sensors may not be worth it.
Outside of cities, you often have less frequently used crossings over main roads, where a button controlled crossing makes much more sense than a fixed cycle.
On the other hand I ride the office elevator every day with people who slam on the "close door" button multiple times despite that the door closes automatically very quickly, as if slamming on the button will increase the speed of the already-closing door.
Many of our crossings do nothing if you don't press the button. And if the light has been green for road traffic for a while, pressing the button /immediately/ sets the traffic sequence towards red. I often let the odd car pass so the traffic looks clear before pressing, rather than force a poor driver to a stop.
Now, why is it an American thing? Is there any deeper reason?
I read a writeup by someone who tried a year or so ago, creating two almost exactly identical Facebook groups only one was telling how one group of people were just sh*t and the other was just the same only with people in the country right across the border from the first one.
One was taken down almost immediately, the twin was still up when the experiment ended IIRC. Won't name the nations here but it goes to show the influence Facebook actually has.
My point was just to add some anecdata that:
* Report buttons seems to work, sometimes.
* Facebook is not necessarily a neutral party.
For example, reporting a spam post in a neighborhood group.
> Dropdown > Report Post > It's spam > Continue > Mark this post as spam and/or Report to admin > Done
> How was your experience getting help with this issue?
I would pick happy if it were 2 clicks instead of 7...
> Spam post is still displayed...
I've reported hundreds of posts but it doesn't seem to be actually acknowledged by a human.
Now, on the other hand, Instagram very recently (maybe last month) drastically simplified their reporting + blocking flow down to a small number of steps. It's very nice, and you get feedback of the spam comments and follows being hidden immediately.
Smaller games like Mechwarrior Online? I'd be very surprised if the complaints are ever checked in any systematic way.
The nice thing about the Xbox Live system is that even if the specific game doesn't act on the reports, Microsoft themselves will sooner or later. With smaller games, it's just placebo, and that jerk who you played with will still be there 3 years from now, still being a jerk. Oh well.
There are concrete issues that can be addressed by electing certain persons but generally speaking, change and elections(especially with money involved) it's like the traffic buttons... you think the light changed because you pressed it.
It was my understanding that these kind of "contentious" issues are generally only resolved by the Supreme Court when there is already a de facto majority decision in state laws making it a "safe" decision. I'm not sure how much impact the president can even have on these, seeing how the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and non-partisan.
While I can't speak for 'aaronbrethorst, based on his recent commentary here the theory appears to be that a Republican president will "pack" the Supreme Court with nominees who will then proceed to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
Under our system of rule, this is plausible, and Obergefell was decided by a simple majority of the nine-justice panel, with five concurring and four dissenting. A single retirement or death among the five justices concurring in that opinion, therefore, would open an opportunity for a justice of a different opinion to be empaneled, following which a sufficiently savvy court challenge to gay marriage would give the Supreme Court another opportunity to rule on the matter, possibly with a different result.
As I said, this is plausible. It is not, however, likely. Historically speaking, the Court has been extremely conservative in its actions - not "conservative" in the sense of the modern US political faction, but in the proper sense meaning "cautious and hesitant to overturn the status quo without extremely good cause". Gay marriage is now the law of the land. Whether or not that is a good thing, and whether it should've been made so in the fashion it was, are questions worth discussing, but they're also immaterial to the fact of the matter, and there is very little in the history of the Supreme Court to suggest that even a panel which would have ruled differently in Obergefell will act to overrule it after the fact.
There's one reason I just don't care about red lights anymore when I'm on foot or saddle.
A fully equipped traditional "+" shaped intersection would have 4 crosswalks and 8 buttons, so 1100/(12000 * 2 to 8) = 1% to 5% of crosswalks could have buttons.
NYC gets a lot of grief for decrepit infrastructure, but this is an area where they have actually started to remove the unused stuff.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/signals.shtm...
People here seem to like spending their lives congregated at traffic lights waiting for someone else to push the button so they can cross.
Maybe they're just waiting for me so I don't have to cross by myself?
I worked on a community theater production that rented space from a high school in the summer. It was perfectly cool throughout rehearsals, but sweltering hot when we came in on Saturday because the HVAC system's schedule hadn't been overridden to reflect being occupied over the weekend.
The thermostats around the building (less than 5 years old, with very powerful AC) were, of course, placebos. We called the district-level administrator who had control of HVAC, but she was out of town and couldn't get her VPN client to work. So no AC for us.
Since returning from Japan, I've noticed that many door close buttons in the US are actually functional which surprised me (I had always believed they were placebos). Also, many elevators in the US will close the door as soon as a floor is selected, which in most cases eliminates any need to press door close. In Japan you can press a floor button right away even if others are entering, and as I have discovered by habit, not polite here :)
I guess turning them into something useful is out of the question when there are not enough funds to remove them
Cracked, WSJ, the NYT, and the BBC (twice!) have all covered it.
That is, unless the "careful automation" is actually just a fixed sequence of traffic light changes or a rigorous "cars first" policy.
Without getting existential, I would like to raise that not only does pushing a placebo button give you no control, but the choice even to press that button was not one you took but one which was predefined. This means that even if that button wasn't a placebo, you would still ultimately have no control over what happens as the choice to push the button is not yours.
This extends further questions as to who you are as you are defined by your actions which were not your choice to make. This obviously has serious implications with our legal system where by a person could not be held accountable for commiting a crime however it is also worth noting that the notion of awards would be invalidated as a person had no choice in doing good thing X.
Intelligent agents do make choices and it's a useful abstraction to think of the world that way. A chess playing program may be deterministic and make the same move Everytime. But it still picks the move it thinks is best, out of all the possibilities. If it thought another move was better, if would have chosen that. And so it does have control, it does make choices , in some sense.
Except for the fact that all of those buttons are contaminated with germs. If one person contaminates a walk button at a busy intersection with the flu virus, how many hundreds of other people will be exposed to that over the next few hours? How many people will they expose?
Now, to expect that a 4-way intersection will have any way of obeying the buttons (of that crossing and of all the other pedestrians in all the other crossings) is just laughable
It needs to have been pressed before the light change to show the walk sign. It's either dumb, or it really did increase the delay until the next light change, to allow a pedestrian to cross. It just didn't speed up the initial light change.
Also it means you can possibly have shorter intervals between pedestrian crossing openings because they won't affect anyone as long as nobody pushes the button.
On 3rd street in SF (effectively 6 lane road with 2 lane roads intersecting) they have this setup at most intersections. It makes sense for crossing the 6 lane road, especially since it makes the crossing light extra long to allow for crossing the wide road in time. There's not too much cross traffic, so no point in slowing the 6 lane traffic down unless there's someone crossing.
But they also have the no cross light until the button is pressed for the 2 lane crossing and I think it actually makes things more dangerous. If you don't hit the button early in the cycle, you of course have to wait until next cycle.. Which can be a while! Not that many drivers are turning.. So most people in the neighborhood jaywalk. Which means that drivers looking to turn see a red hand and probably think it's okay to turn even if it's not.
In the course of phasing out external antennas, the initial design had a fake antenna. However, by extending the fake antenna to its maximum, it turned on an high-gain amplifier. So while deceptive, it did improve reception.
But later the retractable antenna served no function other than a placebo that reduced complaints about poor reception.
A more sophisticated mind would consider that maybe they interpret short bursts at the button as one (impatient) signal.
Anyway, I find myself hitting those buttons multiple times just because... I'm not really thinking about it, I just press and then press few more times to be sure. It's probably driven more by the knowledge that doing so will not do anything negative, than from expecting a positive outcome.
However, standing there repeatedly slapping or pressing at the thing like a rat trying to get another dose of heroin is crazy to me.
And it's durable, of course, being made for outdoor use, and so it stays pretty much the same even though no one really cares about it or looks after it any more, day upon day and year upon year, and it stoically refuses to show much sign of its advancing age and the existential uncertainty which now pervades it, and every day puts it one day further away from its memories of brighter days long gone. Days when it was useful. Days when it mattered.
And then someone comes along who's bored. Hey, there's nothing better to do, so you push the button. Maybe you push it a few times, maybe a bunch of times. Maybe just once. Doesn't matter. You're not as bored now. And the button gets to be useful again. Not in the same way as it used to be. Doesn't matter. Useful again. Making someone's day a little bit better again. Worthwhile again. Even if only for a minute. Don't be ashamed of that. Never feel guilty about that. Small kindnesses matter, too.
Me, I just like the sturdy feel of the switch.
Now I want a story about a button who wants to be pressed.
It doesn't do anything, it serves no function, it flags no signal... it's just there to be pressed. For petty Human psychology, so the Human can feel more comfortable in a robotic landscape.
"Please, press me. Put your fingertip on me and push me inward. You'll feel better. I will be fulfilled. My purpose will be actualized. You will feel such a subtle pleasure you won't even notice, but you will fall asleep happier tonight. Just by pressing me. Please. Press me."
My (rather pithy) comment also alludes to a larger scope of activities which people go through (various forms of ritual, cargo-culting, false beliefs, etc.), which give an illusion of control or agency.
As your comment seems to suggest, these may simply be psychological self-inflicted tricks to retain sanity in an uncaring universe. That thought has occurred to me.
It's also possible to engage in self-aware self-trickery. Though that's somewhat more complicated.
I'm also of the view that all models are false. Some models are useful.
Foolproof!
I take issue with the description of these as placebo when really they are just broken devices that were too expensive to remove.