The title of this article is actually a bit misleading. It claims that "Scientifically, you are likely in the slowest line", however this is not what the video indicates. It only says that scientifically you are most likely NOT in the fastest line. Given three cashiers you are equally likely to be in the fastest and slowest line, but there is a 2/3 chance that you are NOT in the line the is fastest. Actually for any number of cashiers, you are equally likely to be in the fastest and slowest line, however you are only more likely NOT to be in the fastest line when there are at least 3 cashiers. If there are 2 cashiers, then there is a 50% chance of being in the fast one and a 50% chance of being in the slow one. Given 1 cashier you are always in both the fastest, and the slowest line. Given 0 cashiers, you are neither in the fastest nor the slowest line. I'm still considering the cases when there are fewer than 0 cashiers.
Slashdot Mirror
The title of this article is actually a bit misleading. It claims that "Scientifically, you are likely in the slowest line", however this is not what the video indicates. It only says that scientifically you are most likely NOT in the fastest line. Given three cashiers you are equally likely to be in the fastest and slowest line, but there is a 2/3 chance that you are NOT in the line the is fastest. Actually for any number of cashiers, you are equally likely to be in the fastest and slowest line, however you are only more likely NOT to be in the fastest line when there are at least 3 cashiers. If there are 2 cashiers, then there is a 50% chance of being in the fast one and a 50% chance of being in the slow one. Given 1 cashier you are always in both the fastest, and the slowest line. Given 0 cashiers, you are neither in the fastest nor the slowest line. I'm still considering the cases when there are fewer than 0 cashiers.