Why are companies allowed to bundle lottery tickets with their products? It's no less of a tax on stupidity than the standalone lotteries are.
Source: My siblings and I sent in about 60 self addressed stamped envelopes between us one year a long time ago. We won a lot of Egg McMuffins and not much else.
Though having an employee steal the winning prize does make the game much less fair.
There's the Canadian statistician who found a weakness in the algorithm producing "random" scratchie tickets.
Thinking a system is secure just because there is a process in place, however careless the design, seems like a recurring theme (society?).
I wonder if it's a psychological bias (or lack of security awareness) in the sense that you'd rather trust an system you can observe than a secure black box. Or maybe it is the fact that the workings of the system in place can act as a distraction to its possible flaws?
The importance of the process is mainly to allow passing of responsability to someone lower down the chain or sideways ("competent external contractors we hired"), then insurance takes care of the rest.
ISO certification in a nutshell
ISO-9001 is not meant to certify quality, but to certify that your quality management meets certain criteria, so that relevant information is recorded and made available for people to judge if if meets their requirements.
I don't know if it's true anymore, but I wish people would look into charities before giving that much needed money.
I don't know why people who have the ability to give to charities--never seem to look into the financials?
I know what I said is sac religious, and I'm probally wrong.
I just know of a lot of smaller nonprofits that need money. They don't incorporate in delware. The principal founders don't make much money. I probally shouldn't have said anything?
They spend 68% of their donations on program expenses, 10% to administrative overhead and 20% on fundraising expenses.
I'm not sure how a charity that funds a research hospital for children can even be "overfunded", medical research is one field that seems capable of absorbing infinite money.
They also have shrimp and a really good cherry pie thing that also come with pieces...
The Monopoly incident in comparison is just boring manipulation of insider information.
As a kid, I was banned from an arcade in my home town for being a bit too good on a certain ticket giving arcade machine (probably around 1995)
The manager was having to reload the machine with tickets too often when I was on it, it actually got to the point where she was standing behind me, watching me win the jackpot probably 2 out of 3 games... after winning several hundred dollars worth of prizes/tickets, I was awarded my tickets and asked not to return.
I actually did my Christmas shopping that year at the prize counter with tickets.
The linked documentary is well worth watching, though.
As the documentary points out, they just didn't think that anyone would be able to "aim and hit" the square they wanted - but they were mistaken, and paid for that complacency. They did not make the mistake a second time.
Keep in mind that this happened in 1984. The board squares were physical panels, and the panel selection software was analog.
In gaming, a random outcome is one the player can't accurately predict or influence. The Press Your Luck board at the time fit that definition, but Larson proved that was not a safe assumption.
Another article I read said he later went on to settle for "undisclosed amount of millions of dollars".
Michael Larson wasn't a theft. He played fair and square and got no unfair advantages. He broke no rules and collected his winnings.
The McDonalds guy just stole a bunch of pieces, gave back the money he made, and went to jail.
They have nothing to do with each other.
The main value of the product is the food. Even if all the prizes were stolen, I'm not sure if there would be a 'victim' in the consumer.