| ▲ | hamdingers 8 hours ago |
| I worked at a company that had effectively no physical security during work hours until the second time someone came in during lunch and stole an armload of laptops. Then we got card readers and a staffed front desk, and discovered our snack budget was too high because people from other companies on other floors were coming to ours for snacks too. I never felt the office was insecure, except in retrospect once it was actually secure. |
|
| ▲ | fxtentacle 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I once lived in Singapore for a while and we were all sure that nobody would steal anything anyway, so we just never bothered to lock the doors. (That was also very helpful if you wanted to stop for a quick coffee with a date in the middle of the night.) You could see the MacBooks from the street, but nothing ever went missing. I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free. |
| |
| ▲ | stevage 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wait, explain the quick coffee bit? You'd let yourself into a random person's house to make coffee? | | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I used to accumulate a pile of change on my desk from buying coffees. Never got touched across about a hundred different offices around Australia (I’m a consultant). Except once: the pile was replaced by a $50 note and a hand written apology saying the guilty party needed change for the parking lot machine. I had less than $30 there in coins so… profit! | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ThrowawayTestr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free. The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it. | | |
| ▲ | some_random an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not actually the extreme punishments, it's the consistent small punishments. It's that you'll actually, seriously get a ticket for littering, even if it's a relatively small ticket. The "Fine City" enforces it's vision in a ubiquitous way, so people just don't break the rules. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This seems like the most effective solution. Imagine if you knew that if you littered, there is a 100% chance you would get a $10 fine immediately. Almost no one would litter ever again, even though the fine is much smaller than the fine is in most countries. Problem is it just takes a lot of resources to police, more than the fine revenue. But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap. |
| |
| ▲ | irjustin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is just the part that you see. Having lived here for a while now. 1. At a young age, you're taught to follow the rules. 2. "Someone's always watching". Lots of CCTV. Community reports. 3. Plenty of police who have the ability and time to investigate even the most petty things. Trust in the system really starts with 1 but is carried day to day by 3. | |
| ▲ | wredcoll 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it. Historically speaking, this is almost never true. People constantly think the solution is crueler punishments and we have hundreds of years of records of what happens. | | |
| ▲ | broken-kebab 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "Hundreds of years of records" sounds like a big exaggeration. I don't think we can reliable talk about more than 150 years, and even that would be sparse, covering only some lucky countries. And this data is hard to evaluate as adjusting it to culture shifts, economy changes, and even to what constitutes "cruel" in different periods isn't easy. I think, it's reasonable to suspect that demonstrative cruelty in crime punishment may have bad side-effects in the long run, but there are just a few cases in recent history where at least short-term outcomes seem to support the claim that it may reduce crime levels. | |
| ▲ | hamdingers an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People who commit crimes generally do not think they will be caught and therefore the punishment is of no concern to them. The better way to deter crime[1] is to convince more of the public that people who commit crimes are usually caught. Preferably by actually catching people who commit crimes. 1. aside from the obviously effective but difficult to implement deterrent of meeting everyone's physical needs | | |
| ▲ | cortesoft 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A lot of crimes are also committed by people who genuinely don't think about the consequences when they are acting. It doesn't matter how bad or how certain the consequence is, because they aren't thinking about it at all. | | |
| ▲ | akoboldfrying 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But apparently there are far fewer such people in Singapore. How would you explain this? I think the explanation is that growing up in an environment where even small infringements are consistently punished makes people think about the consequences more. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Camus134 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think it explains everything. I think social norms have a lot to do with it. It's like the actual social costs of being the one who broke the social trust is so high it dissuades people. It worked for me on a lower level. Everyone cut queues and will grab an empty seat if it looks available at a packed restaurant here so I do it too but I never did that when I lived in Singapore because I knew that's not how things work there and people would genuinely be mad at me for doing it. It's like a self-fulfilling, self-improving environment. Same with Japan and cleanliness. State provided housing for most and a booming economy with low unemployment must help too. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3rodents 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Twitch had badged entry and still managed to have a couple of incidents in which people walked in off the street to steal laptops. No snack theft though, thankfully some things are sacred. |
|
| ▲ | mikepurvis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What year was that? I was at a startup from 2010 onward and I'm pretty sure we had physical keys until about twelve people and after that it was straight to badges. There was never a time where you could just walk in. |
| |
| ▲ | hamdingers 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Late 2010s. We actually did have badges but the doors were only locked outside work hours, so nobody carried them. The thief had to walk past a security desk in the lobby, take the elevator up to our floor, walk past a front desk to the kitchen, then open a door to get to the office area. Probably sounded like enough layers for whoever was in charge of security at the time, but both desks were frequently unoccupied during lunch. I know we had cameras too, but I never got updates on the investigation. I suspect it was an employee at one of the other companies in our building. | | |
| ▲ | mikepurvis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Interesting. I feel like most places still make you badge into the doors during business hours, and even specifically encourage not permitting tailgating, sometimes tied to a purported safety concern around being able to know who is in the building in an emergency... though honestly at most shops I bet no one has any idea how to get a report like "everyone who has badged in in since 6am this morning". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How the fuck nobody notices some randoms coming to steal snacks in the first place ? |
| |
| ▲ | bombcar 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a huge difference between a company with its own building, and a company that shares a building in some way with other companies. Many I've seen have it setup so that if you get past the security guard at the lobby, you effectively had full reign of the entire building, including many companies that wouldn't lock the doors or common areas. | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I worked somewhere with a few hundred employees across 3 floors. If someone wearing business casual walked onto our floor I would have no idea if they worked for us or not. | |
| ▲ | hamdingers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ~400 person company spread across a few floors, but only one kitchen. It wasn't weird for people you didn't recognize to come off the elevator and get snacks to take back to their floor. | |
| ▲ | mystifyingpoi 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I work at a company of ~200 people and I already don't recognize everyone. Seeing an unknown face, I just assume they are from some distant team that I never had to interact with, say hi and move on. | |
| ▲ | kjs3 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We have nearly a 1000 people in my building. I don't track every rando that walks by, nor reasonably could I. |
|
