The Rational Ratio

Today I heard one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. A friend who shall remain nameless told me that in college, he and his friends were dunk one night and decided to go to White Castle. On it's face, this is not so bad, but here's the kicker. The White Castle was in JERSEY and his college was in Farmville, VIRGINIA. A six and a half hour drive for White Castle? To borrow a phrase from Richard, "SIR!.......SIR!" 6 and a half hours is bad enough. The fact that you went to Jersey makes it even worse. A longer trip to New York would have been way more acceptable. But as is, I have to question this decision. Well, since you were drunk, the decision I am questioning is that of the driver? Who drives drunk people 6 and a half HOURS to JERSEY for white castle? Have some self respect, man.



To protect against situations like this, I've established what I like to call as the rational ratio. It works like this - the farther away something is, the more awesome it must be to warrant a trip there. As you can see by the chart, it's roughly exponential, meaning that as the travel time increases, something has got to be more and more awesome. The chart here stops at 2 hours, and is already up at 8 on the awesome scale, so you can just imagine how high the awesomeness would have to be to warrant a 6.5 hour trip. Given that it was White Castle, he had to do Drive Thru, and it was Jersey, I'd say my friend fell far short of the awesomeness requirement.

I keep a copy of the rational ratio in my wallet. Whenever a trip is suggested, all it takes is a quick calculation of expected awesomeness and travel time, and the ratio will help you make the right decision. Full disclosure: The ratio is just a guideline. Factors like available alternatives, who is driving, if you can sleep, and previous experience with the activity all push the scale up and down. In the end it's often a judgement call.