is there data backing up this n+1 claim? without A/B testing it, it is hard to be convinced that it is definitely the cheaper strategy. in fact, it makes a lot of assumptions about how people will behave, whats to prevent a culture developing where someone always grab the last roll but is responsible for flagging down the next batch? thus severely increasing your costs. regardless tho it is definitely non-intuitive and clever and worth testing for the sake of academic curiosity.
I agree. This would need to be tested thoroughly before it could have any degree of certainty attached to it.
I would also argue that the remaining roll shouldn't be reused for other customers anyway (if it has been sitting out on a table for hours), thus rendering it unusable and therefore a cost. The restaurant owner might inadvertently find themselves wasting the +1 roll - or it simply being eaten anyway!
It's a nice, thought-provoking story, but I wonder how applicable to the real-world this really is?
I don't think the +1 roll /is/ reused - I think they meant that if you can assume rolls uneaten by the party to which they are served are simply thrown out. With that assumption, the total rolls "lost" by the restaurant stays at n+1 - compared to serving that extra n rolls (which, if uneaten, may be assumed to have been thrown out as well)
Another thing that might happen is that by having +1 roll is causes the customers to wait a minute to see if anyone else wants the roll before grabbing it. This extends the time that is needed for the bowl to be refilled and the longer the better (i.e. the closer to the food being ready)
