I don’t really understand what is the end goal here. It isn’t minimising the amount of total work done, because for this optimal strategy would be just leaving the seat in whatever position it was used. Funnily enough, amount of times it needs to be put up is exactly the same it needs to be put down in absolute terms, but considering the “up” group is smaller than “down group”, their perceived amount of times position should be changed is higher than the same for the opposite group.
I. e. in group of one “up” and 9 “downs”, “ups” need to change position of lid with 90% probability, and for every “down” it’s only 10%. Huh. Of course overall it equalizes: 1×0.9=9×0.1.
Or is it some kind of “welcomeness”? Like, leaving the lid in the most probable expected position (which for equal gender usage would be “sitting” because people sometimes poop, usually not while standing; and because penis people sometimes pee while sitting (me often, but usually at home, not in public)).
I don’t know either. There really isn’t a universally agreed upon standard for how to leave a toilet seat. Even with a sign dictating the expected behaviour, it’s not a guarantee. It’s completely illogical to expect a toilet seat to have been left in any specific state*, and therefore the onus is entirely on the next person to set it how they want before using it. This is already how it works. It takes 1 second. I don’t know who is complaining about it.
Although, on second thought, the only people who would ever have to move the seat in a seat-down world are those who want to pee standing up, and there might be some value in very gently discouraging that behaviour in a public restroom. Not sure if that’s the goal here, but it’s a theory.
I don’t really understand what is the end goal here. It isn’t minimising the amount of total work done, because for this optimal strategy would be just leaving the seat in whatever position it was used. Funnily enough, amount of times it needs to be put up is exactly the same it needs to be put down in absolute terms, but considering the “up” group is smaller than “down group”, their perceived amount of times position should be changed is higher than the same for the opposite group. I. e. in group of one “up” and 9 “downs”, “ups” need to change position of lid with 90% probability, and for every “down” it’s only 10%. Huh. Of course overall it equalizes: 1×0.9=9×0.1.
Or is it some kind of “welcomeness”? Like, leaving the lid in the most probable expected position (which for equal gender usage would be “sitting” because people sometimes poop, usually not while standing; and because penis people sometimes pee while sitting (me often, but usually at home, not in public)).
Or is it something else?
I’ve heard of someone who’s mother died cuz they left the seat down and she just got stuck
I don’t know either. There really isn’t a universally agreed upon standard for how to leave a toilet seat. Even with a sign dictating the expected behaviour, it’s not a guarantee. It’s completely illogical to expect a toilet seat to have been left in any specific state*, and therefore the onus is entirely on the next person to set it how they want before using it. This is already how it works. It takes 1 second. I don’t know who is complaining about it.
Although, on second thought, the only people who would ever have to move the seat in a seat-down world are those who want to pee standing up, and there might be some value in very gently discouraging that behaviour in a public restroom. Not sure if that’s the goal here, but it’s a theory.
*Unless there’s a lid. Close the damn lid!
Seriously? It’s sexism. Women shouldn’t be expected to touch filthy things.
Not my belief, but it’s the basis of the logic.