No they’re not interchangeable. They are all designed with each other in mind, along the spectrum, to maximize profits under constraints, and the reality of rivalrousness is one reason to not simply try to run at 100% capacity every instant.

I can't tell what this paragraph is responding to. What are "they"?

You explained they popped up from the ground. Those are just about the most excludable toilets in existence!

Okay I do feel a bit silly for missing this... but I also still maintain that "allows everyone or no one to use" is a stretch when it comes to excludability. (Like, if the reason we're talking about it is "can the free market provide this service at a profit", then we care about "can the provider limit access to people who are paying for it". If they can't do that, do we care that they can turn the service off during the day and on at night?)

Overall it still seems like you want to use words in a way that I think is unhelpful.

Idk, I think my reaction here is that you're defining terms far more broadly than is actually going to be helpful in practice. Like, excludability and rivalry are spectrums in multiple dimensions, and if we're going to treat them as binaries then sure, we could say anything with a hint of them counts in the "yes" bin, but... I think for most purposes,

• "occasionally, someone else arrives at the parking lot at the same time as me, and then I have to spend a minute or so waiting for the pay-and-display meter"

is closer to

• "other people using the parking lot doesn't affect me"

than it is to

• "when I get to the parking lot there are often no spaces at all"

I wouldn't even say that: bathrooms are highly rivalrous and this is why they need to be so overbuilt in terms of capacity. While working at a cinema, did you never notice the lines for the womens' bathroom vs the mens' bathroom once a big movie let out? And that like 99% of the time the bathrooms were completely empty?

My memory is we didn't often have that problem, but it was over ten years ago so dunno.

I'd say part of why they're (generally in my experience) low-rivalrous is because they're overbuilt. They (generally in my experience) have enough capacity that people typically don't have to wait, and when they do have to wait they don't have to wait long. There are exceptions (during the interval at a theatre), but it still seems to me that most bathrooms (as they actually exist, and not hypothetical other bathrooms that had been built with less capacity) are low-rivalrous.

None of your examples are a counterexample. All of them are excludable, and you explain how and that the operators choose not to.

I'm willing to concede on the ones that could be pay gated but aren't, though I still think "how easy is it to install a pay gate" matters.

But did you miss my example of the pop-up urinals? I did not explain how those are excludable, and I maintain that they're not.

Thing I've been wrong about for a long time: I remembered that the rocket equation "is exponential", but I thought it was exponential in dry mass. It's not, it's linear in dry mass and exponential in Δv.

This explains a lot of times where I've been reading SF and was mildly surprised at how cavalier people seemed to be about payload, like allowing astronauts to have personal items.

Sorry, I didn't see this notification until after - did you find us?

I agree that econ 101 models are sometimes incorrect or inapplicable. But

I don’t know how much that additional cost is, but seemingly less than the benefit, because three months later, the whole of Germany wants to introduce this card. The introduction has to be delayed by some legal issues, and then a few counties want to introduce it independently. So popular is this special card!

The argument here seems to be that the card must satisfy a cost-benefit analysis or it wouldn't be so popular, and I don't buy that either.

Ah, I can sometimes make fridays but not tomorrow. Hope it goes well.

they turn a C/G base pair to an A/T, or vice versa.

Can they also turn it into a G/C or a T/A? I wasn't sure if this was an example or a "this is the only edit they do". Or I might just be misunderstanding and this question is wrong.

I think Ben's proposal is: between rounds, it takes a while to split the whole deck into suits, all hearts in one pile and all spades in another and so on. Instead you can just pick out four hearts, and four spades, and so on, and remove 0/2/2/4 cards from those piles, and shuffle the rest back into the deck. But no matter how you shuffle, I don't think you can do that without leaking information.

The Gap Cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson

I think I've read this twice, in my early teens and early twenties, and loved it both times. But I'm now 34 and can't talk about it in depth. I think past-me especially liked the grimness and was impressed at how characters seemed to be doing things for internally motivated reasons. (IIRC Donaldson calls this giving characters "dignity". I feel like since then I've picked up another term for it that's temporarily slipped my mind.)

I still think A Dark and Hungry God Arises and This Day All Gods Die are excellent book titles.

A caveat is that back then I also loved Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books, and I think that by my mid-twenties I enjoyed them but not so much. So plausibly I'd like the Gap Cycle less now than then too? But I want to re-read.

Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer

I once saw a conversation that went something like: "I don't find writing quality in sci-fi that important." / "You clearly haven't read Too Like the Lightning".

I wasn't sure if the second person meant TLTL's writing is good or bad. Having read TLTL, both interpretations seemed plausible. (They meant good.)

I found it very difficult to get through this book, except that the last few chapters were kind of gripping. That was enough to get me to read the next one, which was hard to get through again. Ultimately I read the whole series, and I'm not sure how much I enjoyed the process of reading it. But they're some of my favorite books to have read, and I can imagine myself re-reading them.

Crystal trilogy by Max Harms

I enjoyed this but don't have much to say. As an AI safety parable it seemed plausible enough; I hadn't previously seen aliens like that; I occasionally thought some of the writing was amateurish in a way I couldn't put my finger on, but that wasn't a big deal.

just make 4 piles of 4 cards from each suit and remove from those

I don't think you can do this because at least one person will see which cards are in those piles, and then seeing those cards in game will give them more info than they're supposed to have. E.g. if they see 9h in one of the piles and then 9h in game, they know hearts isn't the 8-card suit.

(The rules as written are unclear on this. But I assume that you're meant to remove cards at random from the suits, rather than having e.g. A-8 in one suit, A-Q in one, and A-10 in the other two. If you did that then getting dealt the Q or J would be a dead giveaway.)