Timeline for How can I pair socks from a pile efficiently?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2015 at 14:46 | comment | added | Andrea Lazzarotto | «n packet of white and m packets of black. No need for other colors in everyday's life» A good standard rule for easy sock selection is actually that they should match either the color of your trousers or the color of your belt. For this reason, the most commonly used colors will likely be black, blue, gray and some brown. It's hard to believe one needs many white socks. | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 13:52 | comment | added | DrShaffopolis | A lot of people tend to discount the non-algorithmic answer as a joke. "Sure, it works for socks, but this is really a discussion about programming and you're dodging the question." But I think it's still relevant. In my experience building actual software products for customers, if someone spends days working on a problem that looks like it came out of a college textbook, there's almost always a simpler (non-algorithmic) solution they're overlooking. | |
| Dec 7, 2014 at 1:54 | comment | added | rupps | in my case, I don't need step (1), as they automatically discard themselves, unfortunately not in pairs. Socks tend to disappear at a constant rate, normally about 2 months are enough to lose track of 10 pairs. | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 9:57 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by kevinarpe | ||
| Sep 11, 2013 at 13:35 | comment | added | Donatas Olsevičius | I use this algorithmic approach every morning and it works like a charm! Additionally, I put worn out socks to a different pile to throw away later (unfortunately they manage to get to the original pile again before I find the time to trash it). | |
| Sep 6, 2013 at 23:39 | comment | added | bkconrad | I came here specifically to post your "non-algorithmic" answer. As in true computer science, most people never pay enough attention to the data and its structure. | |
| Jul 29, 2013 at 20:21 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Second iteration. Removed meta information.
|
| Mar 30, 2013 at 5:25 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy edited (except for the last sentence that seems to be somewhat incomprehensible).
|
| Jan 22, 2013 at 16:53 | comment | added | FastAl | BTW (1) Binding your socks results in the elastic one one being stored stretched and the will fail much more quickly. Limiting the kinds of unique socks you have makes binding unneded. (2) A disadvantage of limiting unique socks is that for people with certain fashion concerns, the method may be unsuitable. | |
| Jan 22, 2013 at 16:51 | comment | added | FastAl | Upvote for 'non-algorithmic' answer. This is exactly what I do and it works wonderfully. The replacement issue is not a problem if you 'rotate' your sock stock by placing washed socks in back and pulling from the front of the drawer in the morning. All socks wear evenly. When I start noticing some wear on one, I put on the shopping list to completely replace that entire class of socks. For the old socks, I give the best 20% to Goodwill (tied in a grocery sac so they don't get mixed back in) and pitch the rest. You're not wasting socks, at this point, the 80% only have 6 months left anyway. | |
| Jan 20, 2013 at 3:53 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 20, 2013 at 3:55 | |||||
| Jan 20, 2013 at 3:34 | history | answered | guylhem | CC BY-SA 3.0 |