WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Month: August, 2019

If you’re starting a new gang, read this important set of guidelines before you select your gang colors!

Background:

Some gangs are known for wearing specific colors.

The issue:

It occasionally happens that a non-gang-affiliated passerby’s clothing happens to match local gang colors by chance, which can lead to various unfortunate encounters.

Proposal:

Although it is unlikely that any existing gang will change its colors, if creating a new gang, a new “gang color style guide” is proposed:

  • Instead of adopting a single solid color (e.g. red, blue, green), a gang instead selects the distinctive patterning of a local type of snake, as illustrated in Figure 1.

This has at least two benefits:

  1. Due to the complex snake patterning, it is unlikely that a non-gang-affiliated individual would coincidentally happen to be wearing valid gang colors.
  2. These snake patterns would serve a useful educational purpose for the community at large. For example, people who were continually exposed to The Coral Snake Gang‘s colors would soon become experts in identifying the coloration of the venomous coral snake. This knowledge could save lives and be a useful fact for pub trivia.
1-snake-gang-colors-annotated.png

Fig. 1: These proposed gang colors are the patterns of two commonly-confused snakes. (Left: the non-venomous milk snake. Right: the venomous coral snake.)

Conclusion:

This would be a useful way of reinforcing the knowledge conveyed in the rhyme in Figure 2. Now, every time a person sees a member of “The Milk Snake Gang,” they will also reinforce their familiarity with the coloration of the milk snake.

2-snake-wiki.png

Fig. 2: These rhymes from Wikipedia allegedly help remember which snakes are venomous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_snake . Since it seems prudent to not be bitten by a snake in either the venomous or the non-venomous situation, a more generally applicable rhyme (suggested to me by a fellow bad/worst idea aficionado) would be “If it’s a snake / do not partake.”

PROS: Teaches valuable snake facts, improves public safety.

CONS: May be difficult to find clothing in the required colors/patterns.

 

Increase “friction” in web purchases in order to save us from the convenience of our decadent consumerist society: the incredible “chomping alligator mouth” accessory that you need in your life today!

Background:

In today’s highly computerized society, it’s easy to make an expensive purchase or a life-changing decision with minimal effort.

The issue:

Sometimes, the importance of a decision is out of sync with how much work is required to make that decision.

For example, now that online purchases are extremely “low friction,” it is possible to order 500 king cobras and have them shipped to your house or apartment with just a single button click on a web site.

Previously, one would have had to actually go to a store and start throwing cobras into a shopping bag, loading them into your car, etc., which would have given the purchaser time to reflect on their life decisions.

Proposal:

In order to bring back “friction”—or at least make the danger / importance of a decision evident—the following computer accessory is proposed: a hinged alligator mouth with a button inside (Figure 1).

For any big-ticket purchase or important decision (e.g. “Submit your taxes online”), you will no longer be able to confirm your decision by simply clicking on a button on screen. Instead, you have to reach into the alligator’s mouth and click the “Confirm” button.

3-gator-purchase

Fig. 1: This alligator mouth makes impulse purchases less likely. Description at left: the button (A) must be pressed in order to make any expensive online purchases. Hinged sections (B) and (C) can clamp shut (D) onto the user’s hand if the system determines that the user has made a poor purchasing decision.

The alligator mouth would not necessarily have to even have the capability of chomping on the button-pushing user: it’s possible that the psychological impact of placing one’s hand into the mouth would be sufficient to make the user think twice about their purchase.

 

2-gator-merge-git

Fig. 2: When multiple programmers work on the same code, they have to merge their changes together in the end. If someone submits bad code or improperly merges it, it creates a huge hassle for everyone. Here, the alligator mouth would be able to chomp down on a user who attempted to merge improperly formatted (or otherwise invalid) code.

Bonus proposal:

Since people make more and more of their purchases on smartphones, it’s likely that this alligator mouth would be very inconvenient, since it’s not very portable. To solve this issue, we can bring the “clamshell” form factor back to cell phone designs, then add a motorized mechanism to allow the phone to snap closed onto the user’s fingers.

Historical precedent:

This is basically an Internet-enabled version of the enormous stone “Mouth of Truth” in Rome.

PROS: Reduces the likelihood of poorly-considered Internet purchases.

CONS: May cause enormous psychological trauma and/or loss of important fingers.

Improve the safety of high-altitude mountaineering with this new permitting mechanism—never fear overcrowding on Everest again!

Background:

Certain mountains require that climbers obtain a permit before embarking.

Sometimes these can be expensive, but rarely is any mountaineering competency required. Everest permits, which are issued by the government of Nepal, cost approximately $10,000 (Wikipedia link).

The issue:

If too many people are crowded onto a narrow high-altitude route, disaster can result from increased amount of time that climbers spend in the inhospitable low-temperature and low-oxygen environment.

Proposal:

Instead of just giving out Everest permits to anyone who can pay the fee, why not make a climber show their dedication by first requiring that they summit a less deadly mountain?

Specifically, the climber must obtain a physical “summit eligibility token” from the summit of an easier peak, as shown in Figure 1.

This token—plus the standard entry fee—would then be required for climbing a more difficult mountain.

 

2-mountains

Fig. 1: Left: the leftmost mountain is not too difficult, and can be climbed without a permit. On the top of that mountain is a token that will permit the climber to attempt the mountain shown in the middle of the diagram, and so on.

In order to make things slightly more interesting, the token is not just a simple card or coin, but is an extremely heavy metal ingot (Figure 2).

The climber would have to show their mountaineering prowess by somehow lugging this heavy ingot all the way back down the mountain.

1-tokens

Fig. 2: The more advanced tokens are also heavier; in this case, the “Everest eligibility” token is a 20 kilogram (44 lb.) copper ingot. Restocking these ingots would be easy: they could simply be airdropped from a plane or helicopter, since the exact placement of the ingots is not crucial, as long as they are in the general vicinity of the peak.

Conclusion:

The Everest gatekeepers should adopt this idea, and should immediately start designing some interesting eligibility ingots (and figuring out which mountains they should go on).

PROS: Sets a lower bound on the amount of unqualified-ness of a prospective mountain climber, which may reduce the number of mountaineering fatalities.

CONS: May also reduce overall revenue obtained from permit issuance.