What the article doesn't mention but the store's website https://tot-go12.com/ does is that you need to pass through facial recognition to enter the store and there are multiple cameras tracking whether you try to leave without paying. (Maybe like Amazon Checkout where there's humans continuously monitoring the video feed.)
"High trust society" or not, you need some minimum level of security to avoid becoming a honeypot for all the less-trustworthy individuals that exist in any society. Maybe the highest trust here is in the police actually showing up and doing something about it when they report a theft.
rjh29 152 days ago [-]
There are plenty of unmanned frozen food shops (gyoza etc.) with one CCTV. On the rare occasion that someone steals food, it is taken seriously and investigated.
People have been arrested here for grabbing a medium combini coffee cup and using it to serve a large coffee.
skissane 152 days ago [-]
Junior high principal in Hyogo fired for stealing seven half cups of coffee [Feb. 3, 2024]
I'm not sure there's any scope for debate here really, surely its all a bit beyond beyond "it was an accident, Officer" at that stage ?
rayiner 152 days ago [-]
> People have been arrested here for grabbing a medium combini coffee cup and using it to serve a large coffee.
God I love Japan.
Studies show that the most important thing about criminal punishment is certainty of being caught and prosecuted.
HeavyStorm 152 days ago [-]
> Studies show that the most important thing about criminal punishment is certainty of being caught and prosecuted.
This might lead someone to wrongly conclude that high order societies are a matter of policing. It's not. It's a matter of culture. Japan doesn't have more cops per citizen than your average 1st world country. But they do have a culture that deeply condemns crime and values honor.
more_corn 152 days ago [-]
But they also won’t declare a death a murder unless they can solve it. They take their 100% solve rate quite seriously.
rayiner 152 days ago [-]
I agree, but I’d submit that the way the criminal justice system works reinforces culture. Swiftly catching and consistently punishing law breakers helps reinforce the social norms against crime.
tptacek 151 days ago [-]
They also have a hostage justice system with a 95%+ conviction rate, in which people can effectively be detained indefinitely (years) without trial as prosecutors hold out for confessions. In a very real sense, we started the United States of America specifically to avoid that kind of system. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
bigyabai 150 days ago [-]
Woe is it upon the world that indefinite incarceration is generally accepted and not a cause for international condemnation.
rangestransform 152 days ago [-]
Singapore was able to police itself into a high trust society
pelagicAustral 152 days ago [-]
I know this is besides the point, incredibly petty and borderline psychotic, but... if you can fill your medium cup with the amount of a large one, wouldn't that mean that the store is the one cheating on you? The way this is playing in my head is: I grab the medium cup, try to outsmart the universe and pour a large into it, coffee overflows in my hand, and I watch justice being served as my hand gets burn and I cannot scream because that would denounce my scam.
coldtea 152 days ago [-]
Doesn't matter that they have cameras on top to monitor etc - it's still a high true, high order society that enables it.
Sn Francisco super markets on the other hand (and increasingly everywhere else), have to lock cheeses and baby formulas
bapak 152 days ago [-]
> the police actually showing up and doing something about it when they report a theft.
That and this whole concept can only happen in places with low criminality. In Thailand I occasionally find small shops that have a CCTV and that's it (but the total value of goods on display likely does not exceed $100)
socalgal2 152 days ago [-]
I wonder what does it take to get a society to have low criminality. IIUC Japan wasn't always this way. Could other societies become high trust? Singapore is. It wasn't always
Tade0 152 days ago [-]
If self-checkout stores[0] are a measure of being such a place: Ageing of society. I've read last year's statistics about my country's criminality and two things stand out:
1. It's half what it was 20 years ago.
2. The largest group of perpetrators are people in their mid 30s, not 17-20yo like it was two decades ago and they focus on online fraud, not actually going places to commit crimes.
[0] Specifically corner shops with a self-checkout machine and just one person behind the non-self checkout counter who wouldn't be able to react anyway should anyone leave with the goods.
Or just the insurers paying up because the police provided a crime number.
This is how it works in the U.K. - everyone has cctv, not because it prevents theft or allows the police to investigate, but rather because it allows you insurance coverage for any losses.
Anonbrit 152 days ago [-]
If insurance became expensive enough (and logically the price must continue to rise as claims increase) then there will be a financial advantage for companies to design their shops not to need such insurance
traceroute66 152 days ago [-]
> you need to pass through facial recognition to enter the store and there are multiple cameras tracking whether you try to leave without paying.
Totally irrelevant point.
Walk into any supermarket in a Western country these days.
The place is crawling in CCTV.
The packets of steak and other "expensive" stuff have RFID anti-theft tags on them.
The self-service checkouts have close-up CCTV and anti-theft weight comparison systems.
Many even employ security contractors to stand by the door.
Does it prevent thefts ?
Does it hell. The scumbag steals the goods and says F** Y** to the security guard on the way out. By the time the police get there (if they can even be bothered to turn up for such a minor crime) its too late.
So yes, I am with the original blog. CCTV or not, the sort of thing shown in the blog could only happen in Japan.
rayiner 152 days ago [-]
It’s because, in the U.S., nobody will bother to look at the CCTV to catch the perpetrator. Or even if they do, the court will release them because it’s a non-violent offense. The most important deterrent in criminal justice is the certainty that conduct will be punished.
RataNova 152 days ago [-]
Pure honor systems don't scale well in cities, even in Japan
hilbert42 152 days ago [-]
That's wonderful, but it's not a big surprise for me.
When in Tokyo I encountered vending machines on a public street (the Ginza) that dispensed bottles of whiskey—Suntory if I recall—that operated 24 hours a day. If you wanted a drink at 3AM you could get it.
Where I am that vending machine would be vandalized overnight and the owner of such an appliance shop would be broke and out of business the next day.
Shame really.
Edit: A Westerner but longtime resident of Japan told me when I was working there of a hotel robbery where an American tourist had valuables and jewelry worth a substantial sum taken from her hotel room. The robbery was big enough to make the newspapers which led to the return of the jewelry. The thief after seeing the news story returned them with a message to the effect "Sorry, I wouldn't have stolen them if I'd known you were a visiting tourist".
Perhaps the story is apocryphal but it and other stories such as if you lose your wallet there's good chance it'll be returned complete with cash—is testament to the honesty of Japanese people.
adrian_b 152 days ago [-]
While visiting Japan last year, I have witnessed a scene when one of my companions forgot his wallet, which also contained an expensive smartphone, in a train, when we have changed quickly the trains, and someone from the other train ran really, really fast, to catch us in the other train and give the forgotten wallet to its owner.
Than he ran equally fast to his train, which was ready to leave. Had he not run so fast while returning the wallet to its owner, he would have lost his train. Therefore, doing a good deed had required quite an effort for that Japanese, but this had not dissuaded him.
rjh29 152 days ago [-]
Those vending machines are supposed to check ID but I've never seen one do (I think cigarette machines do). They just turn off at night and apparently that's enough to stop children from using them.
hilbert42 152 days ago [-]
It's quite some time since I've been there but I can't remember an ID system being in place. I didn't have to produce an ID and usually I selected non-alcoholic drinks. However, that was before the proliferation of smartphones, so back then it is likely there was no ID checking.
As a nonsmoker, I can't speak about cigarette machines, likely there was no ID on them too.
Nowadays, with smartphones etc. checking IDs is comparatively easy but I can't think how it would have been done back then.
Right, that's cleared things up. Both the Taspo/Tobacco Card and vending machine capability (cash or credit, top up card, etc.) weren't available when I was there last. I'd reckon the strict ID requirements for Taspo card must have been quite a cultural shock. My recollection was that back then tobacco products were much more freely available than where I was living.
rjh29 151 days ago [-]
It didn't properly come out until 2008, so until then I suppose schoolchildren could have easily used the machines! Unimaginable in most countries.
rkomorn 150 days ago [-]
> Unimaginable in most countries.
I guess that also applies to France... because why would we use machines when we could just walk into a shop and buy cigarettes without ID?
I remember my much older sister sending me off to buy cigarettes for her when I was maybe 12 and having zero problems. Many of my friends smoked through high school, also with zero problems acquiring cigarettes.
So yeah, using machines to buy cigarettes as a kid? Unimaginable for me, but I'm guessing not the way you were imagining it.
hilbert42 150 days ago [-]
"…because why would we use machines when we could just walk into a shop and buy cigarettes without ID?"
Exactly, I'm not in France but that practice was pretty common in most Western countries not that many decades ago (see my reply to this post). I didn't mention it but where I am (Australia) it also was pretty common for a kid to go to the shops to pick up cigarettes for, say, a parent.
When I first went to France decades ago (I've relatives in Paris) I found smoking was even more culturally entrenched than where I am, there were posters everywhere for Gitanes, Gauloises and other cigarettes. In fact, France is the home of many classic posters advertising or showing people smoking, many are so good they're now considered works of art.
I've not been to France for some time but I gather in recent years the French's attitude towards smoking has changed dramatically and the practice is now frowned upon culturally—or at least that's my perception from a far. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That's not what I'd have expected (anyway, not to such a degree); unlike the puritanical guilt-ridden English, I'd have thought French culture was more resilient. What brought this change to my attention was the recent kerfuffle over the French icon Jacques Tati's M. Hulot where posters on the Métro were censored—M. Hulot is portrayed sans pipe!
My immediate reaction was 'sacrilege, the vandal who did that had an unmitigated damn hide—what the Hell's going on in France to allow that to happen?'. You see, I'm a great Tati fan and Jour de fête, Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot and Mon Oncle are some of my most loved films—so the 'desecration' affected me personally.
As I've mentioned, I'm a nonsmoker and I applaud the reduction in smoking in recent years but vandalizing a cultural icon is carrying the anti-smoking message too far, it not only rendered M. Hulot's most idiosyncratic characteristic mute, but also make a mockery of the anti smoking message and it's likely to have been counterproductive. If what happened to M. Hulot had occurred in the UK or Righteous America I'd have said 'that's to be expected' but that it occurred in France was a total surprise.
No doubt, there was a backlash from Tati fans. I've not heard the outcome, what occurred in the wash-up?
BTW, As a kid I saw Mon Oncle not long after the film was released and I was enthralled. I never tire of seeing it.
rkomorn 150 days ago [-]
France has definitely changed compared to say, 20 years ago, but it still more cigarette-oriented (especially in public) than where I've lived in the US (CA and NJ), but also less than Portugal, where I live now.
TBH, I think "frowned upon" would be an optimistic take on the current attitude towards smoking. It is still (to me) inexplicably common and popular.
That said, I actually think you've got an inverted view on French opinion. I'd say it's what you consider a desecration that didn't matter to us. People do stuff, sometimes silly stuff, and I think we generally do not lose sleep over it. The notion that it was vandalizing some cultural icon is honestly the kind of thinking that we'd be less likely to abide, more than we'd oppose anti-smoking vandalism. :)
But: maybe I'm just projecting.
hilbert42 150 days ago [-]
France's attitude to smoking has obviously changed in recent years along with much of the world, ipso facto, earlier this thread was mentioning that Japanese cigarette vending machines now require ID before purchase. That trend of making it harder to access tobacco products seems to be occurring everywhere, but as you indicate not every country is changing at the same rate or to the same degree. As a nonsmoker, I welcome that trend and wish it would progress at a faster rate (but as I'll mention it can also have its downsides).
I've not been to France for well over a decade so I've no personal feel for the current cultural mindset so in my ignorance "frowned upon" seemed a way of extrapolating with only limited information. I thus cannot say whether I've an inverted view of French opinion, what I can say however is that my opinion was formed from multiple press reports that many in France were outraged and that some politicians were even calling for a change in the law to stop any repetition (as I've mentioned, I'm not au fait with subsequent events).
As a fan of Tati films of course I'm hyperbolizing to a degree but it's not anti-smoking vandalism that's my main point. The issues are complex so I have to be careful what I say here, I cannot give a long explanation on HN to cover every nuance; and paraphrasing is dangerous, when doing so issues can become black and white when in fact they're various shades of gray.
The best I can do here is to say that the Hulot's pipe issue is symptomatic of a bigger problem in society(ies) where after a problem or issue is identified there's often an overreaction that's not necessarily beneficial to the outcome, it can not only slow down solutions but also it's likely to create a very charged and ugly political environment.
There are many instances of this, nuclear power and accidents, Montreal Protocol/CFCs, Plastics/pollution, CO2/fossil fuels vs renewables vs climate change, fear of chemicals/chemicals in the environment, etc.—all matters I obviously cannot cover here in detail.
I will however come back to the smoking/tobacco matter for a moment. This controversy has divided societies to various degrees for decades, and much of the debate is emotional rather than rational (that said, I'm not suggesting for a second that smoking isn't dangerous, it certainly is). In some countries such as the US, UK and Australia (especially so anglophone ones) debate is no longer just that but rather has descended into a screaming match between sides, logic no longer reigns. Some opponents of smoking act almost to the point of hysteria when anyone with a cigarette comes near them but many of these very same people are quite prepared to sit near a camp fire or BBQ and not complain about the smoke—and in so doing they'll absorb a much higher dose of carcinogenic dioxins than they would from someone with a cigarette. As with those other examples, all too often emotions overrule facts.
Now briefly back to Tati's M. Hulot. When those films were made in late 1940s through to the '60s smoking was not only culturally acceptable but also it had a certain prestige and sophistication about it. Now that in many countries smoking is on the nose so to speak what are we to do? One obvious option is to ban these films altogether, or to give them an 'R' rating so only adults are able to view them. If this trend were to continue (which in my opinion is highly likely) then we could end up in a situation where we see people sneaking into movie theaters in the dead of night or in the case of online streaming viewers would have to first provide verifiable ID of proof of age. If alive today long-dead filmmakers of these once-deemed harmless movies would be horrified.
To some extent this has already happened, many truly classic Warner Bros cartoons of my childhood are now banned from television, same with The Three Stooges on grounds of them being too violent. That said, the hypocrisy is truly outrageous, these days there is any amount of gun and gratuitous violence on TV, in movies and online. Most find this acceptable, only a comparatively small minority of the population actually objects to the violence. So much for objectivity.
Moreover, I expect such problems only to increase. Recently, I've been watching TV soaps from the 1960s (on free-to-air TV) and frankly there are themes—both dialogues and images—that would not appear in TV programs made today, in fact I'm surprised they too haven't been withdrawn because of content that's 'unacceptable' to modern audiences (again, I cannot go into specifics for reasons stated).
The broader issue is how far do we go to protect society from not only itself but also from its past, and what effect does such action have on society? The extension thus is how do we measure whether interventions have positive or negative outcomes, or is often the case how do we quantify the actual damage when opinionated groups within society lobby government for laws that overprotect and mollycoddle citizens? Evidence is that in recent decades certain rules introduced to protect society have ended up making its citizens less resilient, moreover it wasn't necessarily obvious this would occur when they were introduced.
For example, rules introduced to protect the welfare of children have in recent years become so strictured that we're now seeing instances of negative outcomes, consequences are that some kids have become dysfunctional. Overprotecting kids out of fear for their safety has become so all encompassing that we're now witnessing all too many instances of kids being too frightened to leave their homes unless accompanied by an adult, isolation from the world around them has made them fearful of it. If you'd mentioned to anyone that could happen to kids when I was that age they'd have quickly retorted that you were bonkers.
That might seem a long stretch from banning M. Hulot's pipe from the Métro but it is not. Fact is, this is how the rot begins. As I implied, making the correct calls to protect society is both complex and fraught with difficulty. That's not to say we don't need them or that we shouldn't try because we definitely do need them. What we don't need are decisions made on the spur of the moment by the opinionated, rather we need to make time to develop well thought through strategies
hilbert42 150 days ago [-]
OK, that settles it, my experience was before 2008.
"Unimaginable in most countries."
Well, perhaps so these days, but it wasn't at all so when I was a kid. At somewhere between 10 and 12 years old when still in primary school occasionally we kids bought cigarettes on our way home and ducked off somewhere secluded to smoke them.
A few shopkeepers wouldn't sell them to us but many would. There weren't many cigarette machines about (they were usually located on railway stations, in theater foyers etc.), but those in use could be operated by anyone including us kids. Moreover, cigarettes were very cheap, they had nothing like the huge taxes on them of today—so cheap we had no difficulty in purchasing them out of our pocket money.
Kids smoking was frowned upon by most parents and teachers but it wasn't illegal. That's why we smoked in secluded places where we wouldn't be seen. (Back then, smoking was accepted and considered pretty normal for adults, especially men. Since then attitudes have changed dramatically.)
For the record, except for that occasional experimenting as a kid I've never smoked since, nor have I ever had any desire to do so.
152 days ago [-]
bob1029 152 days ago [-]
You still see little islands of high trust in the US. I walked out of an HEB the other day and there were several pickup trucks idling in the parking lot with nobody inside of them. You could open the door and drive off with zero effort if you could find the insanity to do so. I often dont bother to lock my doors at home. The Walmart here doesn't hassle you upon exiting. The local community feels incredibly safe. Drive 20 miles south and you'll find a totally different universe.
yencabulator 152 days ago [-]
> several pickup trucks idling in the parking lot
Way to make it very American..
avidiax 155 days ago [-]
Japan is obviously a "high trust" society, so I feel like this experiment will work.
I wish we had a way to make this sort of system work in a low trust society.
bombcar 155 days ago [-]
We do have a way - "high trust" enclaves inside the low trust society.
The modern examples in the USA are things like colleges, community centers, etc.
You gatekeeper the area and then everything inside is high-trust and you can get away with things like this.
You can also find it in rural areas and some very expensive islands, too.
aomix 155 days ago [-]
While driving through upstate New York on a camping trip I found a maple syrup shop run on the honor system. Leave the money in an unlocked box. It was shocking. I bought a gallon.
petcat 152 days ago [-]
I had the same experience in upstate NY. So many little boutique country stores with craft and art tables outside that just had venmo signs next to the crafts. My wife bought a few items and we were pleasantly surprised to see how many public purchases were made to that venmo account. And it wasn't super cheap junk/stuff either.
ahoka 152 days ago [-]
There are shops like that in Sweden and Germany, probably many other countries.
ElCapitanMarkla 152 days ago [-]
We have quite a few road side stalls like this around where I live in NZ, Honey, eggs, swedes are a common one. You hear of the odd theft from them every now and then but for the most part it seems to work well.
kelipso 155 days ago [-]
I wonder if this is actual high trust or that there are security cameras everywhere.
bombcar 155 days ago [-]
If you've been to the rural USA you'd know it's just high-trust (and the middle of nowhere). They're pretty common for low-value things like corn and farm produce; but I've seen syrup and honey, too.
There might be a camera but since there's usually no power, it'd have to be some sort of trail/game/deer cam. What would you do with the result besides some vigilante frontier justice? No cop anywhere but daytime children's TV is going to investigate the Case of the Stolen Syrup.
sometimes_all 152 days ago [-]
We once went to Florida and saw some open orange farms. We wanted to buy some, but there was nobody in sight - we got very confused until we saw a box which said "$X a bag"; there was a sack of bags nearby. My mind was blown.
> No cop anywhere but daytime children's TV is going to investigate the Case of the Stolen Syrup.
Or Japan apparently, according to some of the comments in this thread.
socalgal2 152 days ago [-]
In what way are USA colleges high trust. USA colleges have very high petty theft.
152 days ago [-]
latexr 152 days ago [-]
> I wish we had a way to make this sort of system work in a low trust society.
I’d rather we had a way to change low trust societies into high trust.
sfdlkj3jk342a 152 days ago [-]
After traveling for years, I often wonder how various cultures end up high or low trust. Wealth or financial inequality doesn't seem to be the main driving factor, despite seeming an obvious cause. Racial and ethnic homogeneity doesn't always explain it either.
Destruction of traditional culture by things like colonialism seems to be an important factor.
shoobiedoo 152 days ago [-]
> Destruction of traditional culture by things like colonialism seems to be an important factor.
Were native peoples of North America high trust between tribes before colonialism?
sfdlkj3jk342a 152 days ago [-]
I'm not that familiar with them, but my guess would be yes, at least for hunter-gatherers. I would think that bad behavior would get you kicked out of the community and lead to likely death.
The larger ancient cities that farmed would be more interesting, especially because today Latin America is one of the lowest trust regions of the world.
gadders 152 days ago [-]
Colonialism is turning the UK into a low trust society?
sfdlkj3jk342a 152 days ago [-]
I didn't suggest it was the only factor.
I guess if you want a single explanation, any significant immigration or influence from a vastly different culture will likely lead to a lower trust society.
gadders 152 days ago [-]
Agreed.
hilbert42 152 days ago [-]
Agreed, points well made. I think an ordered society with long-term stability has much to do with it.
Eisenstein 152 days ago [-]
If there are consequences to bad behavior which results in real, felt, shame, then society will self-police to whatever values it holds. However, there can be downsides; for instance a lack of out-of-the-box thinking and individuality.
coldtea 152 days ago [-]
>for instance a lack of out-of-the-box thinking and individuality.
Overrated. There's close to 0% of it going on in "low trust societies" anyway. It's not like the average social media zombie in the west is anywhere near an "out of the box" thinker...
jwr 152 days ago [-]
I used to buy firewood at National Forest camping sites in the US; there was a box where you dropped the money and then you grabbed a wood bundle.
Granted, this was almost 40 years ago, but this type of thing can work, even in less civilized places like the US.
gentooflux 152 days ago [-]
They leave out more wood than a camper would even think to take because they only need one bundle every day or two. The sort of person who would need to steal a whole season's worth of wood is less likely to have the means to transport it all, and if they're so desperate that they'd go to the trouble then the Christian thing to do would be to let them have it.
Gillette razors on the other hand, are expensive to stock for their size, and easy to steal because of their size.
2muchcoffeeman 152 days ago [-]
I’d wager that outdoorsy people who are out camping in the woods are like a “mini-Japan”. The community has their own set of rules and behaviours that would make an honour system possible. Especially 40 years ago when it would have been more of a monoculture.
portaouflop 152 days ago [-]
You can turn it into a high trust society. The mechanisms and procedures to achieve that are fairly well known.
deadbabe 152 days ago [-]
High trust environments tend to crumble in society when you allow too much immigration. Japan’s xenophobia has worked well in this regard.
kcyb 152 days ago [-]
Switzerland is a diverse society with lots of immigration and it is also a high-trust society
mrweasel 152 days ago [-]
That probably has more to do with who immigrates to Switzerland. I don't now the numbers, but people who immigrate to Switzerland is probably fairly well educated and generally pretty well of.
Denmark is still a fairly high-trust society, not to the level of Switzerland or Japan. We're seeing certain items in supermarkets being locked away or chipped to prevent theft. Now that's not just because of immigrants, Danes steal from the supermarket as well, because prices on many items are increasing rapidly.
coldtea 152 days ago [-]
The huge majority is from Germany, Italy, France, etc. A lot of it is highly vetted, professional migration.
If it adds enough of illegal immigrattion or low-grade legal one, it wont be a high trust society anymore.
deadbabe 152 days ago [-]
Switzerland is so small, basically a city.
coldtea 152 days ago [-]
That's irrelevant to how the world works.
There are countries that are equal or much smaller than Switzerland with 10x worse crime and low trust. Just look at Jamaica.
And there are countries 12x bigger than Switzerland (like Japan) with high trust and low crime.
antonvs 152 days ago [-]
Switzerland's population would make it one of the biggest cities in the world, more than double the population of Los Angeles, and more than New York City. Neither of which could be counted as high trust.
socalgal2 152 days ago [-]
The population of Switzerland is ~9 million. The population of LA metro is around 15 million, and NYC metro aroound 20 million
LA "the city" might be less but you can't tell where LA ends and it's other parts begin. It's one giant metropolis. Same with NYC.
glimshe 152 days ago [-]
The city of LA is just there for administrative purposes. People who live in "Burbank" or "Pasadena" are seen as living in "Los Angeles" by most people outside the region.
antonvs 152 days ago [-]
You can tell where the city ends very easily. There are well-defined boundaries. Government statistics take that into account. Here's the census page for the city of Los Angeles, which lists a population just under 4 million: https://data.census.gov/profile/Los_Angeles_city,_California...
Havoc 152 days ago [-]
Also depends on type though. I’ve seen honesty boxes work out fine where the immigration consists mostly of professionals.
vasco 152 days ago [-]
And a 99.8% conviction rate.
HPsquared 152 days ago [-]
Only 33 prisoners per 100k population (cf 541 in the US). Whatever they're doing, it's working.
Also in 2024, Japanese prison sentences were mostly between 1 and 3 years, and about two thirds were fully suspended. https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001436547.pdf (page 20). Assuming an average of two years for the third not-fully-suspended, that works out to 8 months of time spent in prison per person handed a prison sentence.
That results in about a factor of 7 difference in prison population simply due to the difference in average sentence length. Maybe the US should sentence more people to prison but keep each of them there shorter.
rangestransform 152 days ago [-]
The US court system already relies heavily on plea deals to not jam up the courts. Increasing the throughput of the justice system to facilitate your idea would require an order of magnitude investment into more courts, judges, public defenders, prosecutors, etc. I'm all for it, but the incredible cost does have to be considered
HPsquared 151 days ago [-]
Are plea deals factored into the US conviction rate?
yorwba 151 days ago [-]
In the PDF I linked above, on page 4, you can see that 97.2% of sentences result from guilty pleas and 2.8% from trials.
nazgob 152 days ago [-]
It's a different system, they don't go to court without iron-clad case. Japan does not have a large prison population.
henearkr 152 days ago [-]
And they heavily influence (using pressure such as off-the-record interviews, and long detention times during the investigations) the suspect's statements so that it says what they need to make it a crime, even when it isn't.
Whatever the suspect may say afterwards, they just have to point out to the signed statement and say "but here you confessed".
Source: I have been directly living such occurrence lol.
That's what has been coined the "hostage justice" of Japan (referring in particular to the "long detention times during investigations" part above).
given the stats above, 33 of 100k incarcerated, vs 541 of 100k in the USA. I'm inclined to think that the USA has far more of those types of cases than Japan.
henearkr 152 days ago [-]
Hmm, the thing is that the hostage justice system does have a deterrent effect.
Its net effect is that you absolutely do not want to have anything to do with the police to help solve your problems in the society (true problems, not merely e.g. asking for directions). And then you really want to avoid problems at all.
So, you cannot think of them as "friendly useful workers to help solve problems", because they are heavily incentivized and biased to find or invent crimes if you give them the opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but police interviews are recorded in the US?
And also, you always have the right to an attorney? (that's not the case in Japan except if you want to stay 20 days incarcerated while waiting for an attorney, all for a tiny minor dismeanor).
socalgal2 152 days ago [-]
> you absolutely do not want to have anything to do with the police to help solve your problems in the society
this is commonly said in the USA as well
henearkr 151 days ago [-]
Ah ok, I see.
Maybe I rather have (had) the notion of police as it exists in the UK or some European countries.
There was the French "police de proximité" who acted as friendly allies (it seems it was dismantled in 2003, unfortunately).
RataNova 152 days ago [-]
The real challenge is figuring out how to build even a fraction of that in lower-trust environments
152 days ago [-]
FugeDaws 152 days ago [-]
Even shops with security guards dont work in the UK at the moment. It's a shame this could never be a thing here.
n4r9 152 days ago [-]
It's tempting to see security guards as a basic response to criminal behaviour. But I wonder if the causality is more complex than that. I can easily imagine growing up under different circumstances to view society as a case of "me" vs "them", and I'd be more inclined to lift from shops run by people who clearly see me as enough of a low-life that they'd pay some thugs to man-handle me out.
lesostep 152 days ago [-]
I live in a city where self-checkout was implemented for bus rides.
You still had a chance for a random bus inspection, but generally you can just walk into the bus and not pay anything, then walk out.
It was so strange at first, to see everyone paying when there was no authority demanding a payment.
Knowing that government trusts people around me to behave like good citizens, and knowing how many people actually follow the rules, definitely helped me to feel safer in the city.
15 years ago you had to put your wallet in the inner pocket because bags and outer pockets routinely got slashed. Now I can leave my bag on a bench.
This difference got erased only when economy became more stable, and employment went up.
But I didn't know that I could leave my bag on a bench before I saw with my own eyes that almost everyone tries to be a good citizen. Even if there is no punishment and a small reward for behaving badly
hilbert42 152 days ago [-]
"15 years ago you had to put your wallet in the inner pocket because bags and outer pockets routinely got slashed."
It's decades since I backpacked around Europe on trains and such, and back then slashing pockets and bags was rife. I never traveled anywhere unless I was wearing a money belt strapped to my waist—it held my passport, traveler's checks, large denomination notes and credit cards. I kept my wallet (with only a small amount of cash) in my front jeans pockets—I reckoned that down there I'd notice any slashing pretty quickly. Pants with side pockets were a no-no because they were too easy to pickpocket.
I recall one particularly bad incident in Italy of being surrounded by organised mobs of kids who'd act in ways to distract one's attention whilst others tried to pickpocket one's valuables. I came out unscathed because I was wary from the start.
Later I was living and working in Europe and it was very obvious to me that this sort of crime is much more prevalent in areas where people are unemployed or where there is a great disparity between rich and poor. I've no doubt the solution to such crime is having a society where the distribution of wealth is more equitable.
Re that point and yours about self-checkout for bus rides. That system was implemented a few years ago where I am. I've made the interesting observation that those who travel outside normal to-and-from work hours—say late morning and early afternoon—are the ones most likely to not swipe their travel card on the payment terminal. When I've traveled at those times I'm surprised at the numbers who do not pay. This is in stark contrast to those who are traveling to and from work, at those hours just about everyone pays.
Again, this, no doubt, is an equity/financial issue. Those traveling in the 'off hours' are more likely to be unemployed and or financially hard up.
smusamashah 152 days ago [-]
As a counter point, when I came to UK, it was super weird to see self checkout machines. Where I am from (Pakistan), I can't imagine anything like that. Although watched a video recently where in a rural area a guy left a cart of fruits on the side of road for people to buy the fruits and pay by themselves, at the end of the day cash was just little bit less than total amount.
These machines in UK felt like I was being trusted to pick items myself, and pay myself and I shouldn't break that trust.
Ironically I don't see these self checkout machines in Indian/Turkish/Kurdish etc super stores. In-fact, those stores trust there customers even less, they would ask you to leave your bags/trolleys at the door.
vidarh 152 days ago [-]
You're on multiple cameras for most of the self-checkouts in the UK, with at least some both capturing your face and an overhead view that will trigger a "are you sure you scanned this" complete with replay of what looked to the system of you potentially failing to scan an item before putting it on the scales on the other end if it looks like you move something past the scanner without the scanner triggering.
The system will also typically signal for an attendant if you after a short amount of time ensures the weight on the receiving end matches the expected weight of the items scanned so far.
There's not all that much trust involved in it, and I think just being aware of the cameras will make most people who might be tempted think twice.
Of course it's possible to steal still, but it doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs the shrinkage to add up to a lower cost than having more people at the tills.
swah 152 days ago [-]
I think OP was afraid of making a mistake and stealing by accident.
I also don't like to use those systems if I have many hard to pack items. But at some point I guess you just remove humans completely.
This is one of those "only in Japan" stories that somehow manages to be both heartwarming and surreal
ballenf 152 days ago [-]
I'm blown away by a fridge costing <$100, used or not. Did I misunderstand the prices?
yourusername 152 days ago [-]
I can buy used fridges all day long for €50.
I've gotten fridges for free that were still good for years after that.
No one wants used white goods. Fridges, washing machines and dishwashers you can pick up below $100 easily.
vidarh 152 days ago [-]
A quick search shows I can get fridges used for less than that in London, though mostly small ones. I guess to a lot of people, when they replace goods like that, the hassle of selling it outweighs the perceived return
gregjw 152 days ago [-]
No, you didn't. Says 10,000 yen, so about 70USD at the moment.
CorbenDallas 152 days ago [-]
in some countries honour is to steal from "rich", so not universal :)
Towaway69 152 days ago [-]
(2021)
w15v 152 days ago [-]
[dead]
whatsupdog 152 days ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 11:16:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
"High trust society" or not, you need some minimum level of security to avoid becoming a honeypot for all the less-trustworthy individuals that exist in any society. Maybe the highest trust here is in the police actually showing up and doing something about it when they report a theft.
People have been arrested here for grabbing a medium combini coffee cup and using it to serve a large coffee.
https://japantoday.com/category/national/junior-high-princip...
I'm not sure there's any scope for debate here really, surely its all a bit beyond beyond "it was an accident, Officer" at that stage ?
God I love Japan.
Studies show that the most important thing about criminal punishment is certainty of being caught and prosecuted.
This might lead someone to wrongly conclude that high order societies are a matter of policing. It's not. It's a matter of culture. Japan doesn't have more cops per citizen than your average 1st world country. But they do have a culture that deeply condemns crime and values honor.
Sn Francisco super markets on the other hand (and increasingly everywhere else), have to lock cheeses and baby formulas
That and this whole concept can only happen in places with low criminality. In Thailand I occasionally find small shops that have a CCTV and that's it (but the total value of goods on display likely does not exceed $100)
1. It's half what it was 20 years ago.
2. The largest group of perpetrators are people in their mid 30s, not 17-20yo like it was two decades ago and they focus on online fraud, not actually going places to commit crimes.
[0] Specifically corner shops with a self-checkout machine and just one person behind the non-self checkout counter who wouldn't be able to react anyway should anyone leave with the goods.
This is how it works in the U.K. - everyone has cctv, not because it prevents theft or allows the police to investigate, but rather because it allows you insurance coverage for any losses.
Totally irrelevant point.
Walk into any supermarket in a Western country these days.
The place is crawling in CCTV.
The packets of steak and other "expensive" stuff have RFID anti-theft tags on them.
The self-service checkouts have close-up CCTV and anti-theft weight comparison systems.
Many even employ security contractors to stand by the door.
Does it prevent thefts ?
Does it hell. The scumbag steals the goods and says F** Y** to the security guard on the way out. By the time the police get there (if they can even be bothered to turn up for such a minor crime) its too late.
So yes, I am with the original blog. CCTV or not, the sort of thing shown in the blog could only happen in Japan.
When in Tokyo I encountered vending machines on a public street (the Ginza) that dispensed bottles of whiskey—Suntory if I recall—that operated 24 hours a day. If you wanted a drink at 3AM you could get it.
Where I am that vending machine would be vandalized overnight and the owner of such an appliance shop would be broke and out of business the next day.
Shame really.
Edit: A Westerner but longtime resident of Japan told me when I was working there of a hotel robbery where an American tourist had valuables and jewelry worth a substantial sum taken from her hotel room. The robbery was big enough to make the newspapers which led to the return of the jewelry. The thief after seeing the news story returned them with a message to the effect "Sorry, I wouldn't have stolen them if I'd known you were a visiting tourist".
Perhaps the story is apocryphal but it and other stories such as if you lose your wallet there's good chance it'll be returned complete with cash—is testament to the honesty of Japanese people.
Than he ran equally fast to his train, which was ready to leave. Had he not run so fast while returning the wallet to its owner, he would have lost his train. Therefore, doing a good deed had required quite an effort for that Japanese, but this had not dissuaded him.
As a nonsmoker, I can't speak about cigarette machines, likely there was no ID on them too.
Nowadays, with smartphones etc. checking IDs is comparatively easy but I can't think how it would have been done back then.
I guess that also applies to France... because why would we use machines when we could just walk into a shop and buy cigarettes without ID?
I remember my much older sister sending me off to buy cigarettes for her when I was maybe 12 and having zero problems. Many of my friends smoked through high school, also with zero problems acquiring cigarettes.
So yeah, using machines to buy cigarettes as a kid? Unimaginable for me, but I'm guessing not the way you were imagining it.
Exactly, I'm not in France but that practice was pretty common in most Western countries not that many decades ago (see my reply to this post). I didn't mention it but where I am (Australia) it also was pretty common for a kid to go to the shops to pick up cigarettes for, say, a parent.
When I first went to France decades ago (I've relatives in Paris) I found smoking was even more culturally entrenched than where I am, there were posters everywhere for Gitanes, Gauloises and other cigarettes. In fact, France is the home of many classic posters advertising or showing people smoking, many are so good they're now considered works of art.
I've not been to France for some time but I gather in recent years the French's attitude towards smoking has changed dramatically and the practice is now frowned upon culturally—or at least that's my perception from a far. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That's not what I'd have expected (anyway, not to such a degree); unlike the puritanical guilt-ridden English, I'd have thought French culture was more resilient. What brought this change to my attention was the recent kerfuffle over the French icon Jacques Tati's M. Hulot where posters on the Métro were censored—M. Hulot is portrayed sans pipe!
My immediate reaction was 'sacrilege, the vandal who did that had an unmitigated damn hide—what the Hell's going on in France to allow that to happen?'. You see, I'm a great Tati fan and Jour de fête, Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot and Mon Oncle are some of my most loved films—so the 'desecration' affected me personally.
As I've mentioned, I'm a nonsmoker and I applaud the reduction in smoking in recent years but vandalizing a cultural icon is carrying the anti-smoking message too far, it not only rendered M. Hulot's most idiosyncratic characteristic mute, but also make a mockery of the anti smoking message and it's likely to have been counterproductive. If what happened to M. Hulot had occurred in the UK or Righteous America I'd have said 'that's to be expected' but that it occurred in France was a total surprise.
No doubt, there was a backlash from Tati fans. I've not heard the outcome, what occurred in the wash-up?
BTW, As a kid I saw Mon Oncle not long after the film was released and I was enthralled. I never tire of seeing it.
TBH, I think "frowned upon" would be an optimistic take on the current attitude towards smoking. It is still (to me) inexplicably common and popular.
That said, I actually think you've got an inverted view on French opinion. I'd say it's what you consider a desecration that didn't matter to us. People do stuff, sometimes silly stuff, and I think we generally do not lose sleep over it. The notion that it was vandalizing some cultural icon is honestly the kind of thinking that we'd be less likely to abide, more than we'd oppose anti-smoking vandalism. :)
But: maybe I'm just projecting.
I've not been to France for well over a decade so I've no personal feel for the current cultural mindset so in my ignorance "frowned upon" seemed a way of extrapolating with only limited information. I thus cannot say whether I've an inverted view of French opinion, what I can say however is that my opinion was formed from multiple press reports that many in France were outraged and that some politicians were even calling for a change in the law to stop any repetition (as I've mentioned, I'm not au fait with subsequent events).
As a fan of Tati films of course I'm hyperbolizing to a degree but it's not anti-smoking vandalism that's my main point. The issues are complex so I have to be careful what I say here, I cannot give a long explanation on HN to cover every nuance; and paraphrasing is dangerous, when doing so issues can become black and white when in fact they're various shades of gray.
The best I can do here is to say that the Hulot's pipe issue is symptomatic of a bigger problem in society(ies) where after a problem or issue is identified there's often an overreaction that's not necessarily beneficial to the outcome, it can not only slow down solutions but also it's likely to create a very charged and ugly political environment.
There are many instances of this, nuclear power and accidents, Montreal Protocol/CFCs, Plastics/pollution, CO2/fossil fuels vs renewables vs climate change, fear of chemicals/chemicals in the environment, etc.—all matters I obviously cannot cover here in detail.
I will however come back to the smoking/tobacco matter for a moment. This controversy has divided societies to various degrees for decades, and much of the debate is emotional rather than rational (that said, I'm not suggesting for a second that smoking isn't dangerous, it certainly is). In some countries such as the US, UK and Australia (especially so anglophone ones) debate is no longer just that but rather has descended into a screaming match between sides, logic no longer reigns. Some opponents of smoking act almost to the point of hysteria when anyone with a cigarette comes near them but many of these very same people are quite prepared to sit near a camp fire or BBQ and not complain about the smoke—and in so doing they'll absorb a much higher dose of carcinogenic dioxins than they would from someone with a cigarette. As with those other examples, all too often emotions overrule facts.
Now briefly back to Tati's M. Hulot. When those films were made in late 1940s through to the '60s smoking was not only culturally acceptable but also it had a certain prestige and sophistication about it. Now that in many countries smoking is on the nose so to speak what are we to do? One obvious option is to ban these films altogether, or to give them an 'R' rating so only adults are able to view them. If this trend were to continue (which in my opinion is highly likely) then we could end up in a situation where we see people sneaking into movie theaters in the dead of night or in the case of online streaming viewers would have to first provide verifiable ID of proof of age. If alive today long-dead filmmakers of these once-deemed harmless movies would be horrified.
To some extent this has already happened, many truly classic Warner Bros cartoons of my childhood are now banned from television, same with The Three Stooges on grounds of them being too violent. That said, the hypocrisy is truly outrageous, these days there is any amount of gun and gratuitous violence on TV, in movies and online. Most find this acceptable, only a comparatively small minority of the population actually objects to the violence. So much for objectivity.
Moreover, I expect such problems only to increase. Recently, I've been watching TV soaps from the 1960s (on free-to-air TV) and frankly there are themes—both dialogues and images—that would not appear in TV programs made today, in fact I'm surprised they too haven't been withdrawn because of content that's 'unacceptable' to modern audiences (again, I cannot go into specifics for reasons stated).
The broader issue is how far do we go to protect society from not only itself but also from its past, and what effect does such action have on society? The extension thus is how do we measure whether interventions have positive or negative outcomes, or is often the case how do we quantify the actual damage when opinionated groups within society lobby government for laws that overprotect and mollycoddle citizens? Evidence is that in recent decades certain rules introduced to protect society have ended up making its citizens less resilient, moreover it wasn't necessarily obvious this would occur when they were introduced.
For example, rules introduced to protect the welfare of children have in recent years become so strictured that we're now seeing instances of negative outcomes, consequences are that some kids have become dysfunctional. Overprotecting kids out of fear for their safety has become so all encompassing that we're now witnessing all too many instances of kids being too frightened to leave their homes unless accompanied by an adult, isolation from the world around them has made them fearful of it. If you'd mentioned to anyone that could happen to kids when I was that age they'd have quickly retorted that you were bonkers.
That might seem a long stretch from banning M. Hulot's pipe from the Métro but it is not. Fact is, this is how the rot begins. As I implied, making the correct calls to protect society is both complex and fraught with difficulty. That's not to say we don't need them or that we shouldn't try because we definitely do need them. What we don't need are decisions made on the spur of the moment by the opinionated, rather we need to make time to develop well thought through strategies
"Unimaginable in most countries."
Well, perhaps so these days, but it wasn't at all so when I was a kid. At somewhere between 10 and 12 years old when still in primary school occasionally we kids bought cigarettes on our way home and ducked off somewhere secluded to smoke them.
A few shopkeepers wouldn't sell them to us but many would. There weren't many cigarette machines about (they were usually located on railway stations, in theater foyers etc.), but those in use could be operated by anyone including us kids. Moreover, cigarettes were very cheap, they had nothing like the huge taxes on them of today—so cheap we had no difficulty in purchasing them out of our pocket money.
Kids smoking was frowned upon by most parents and teachers but it wasn't illegal. That's why we smoked in secluded places where we wouldn't be seen. (Back then, smoking was accepted and considered pretty normal for adults, especially men. Since then attitudes have changed dramatically.)
For the record, except for that occasional experimenting as a kid I've never smoked since, nor have I ever had any desire to do so.
Way to make it very American..
I wish we had a way to make this sort of system work in a low trust society.
The modern examples in the USA are things like colleges, community centers, etc.
You gatekeeper the area and then everything inside is high-trust and you can get away with things like this.
You can also find it in rural areas and some very expensive islands, too.
There might be a camera but since there's usually no power, it'd have to be some sort of trail/game/deer cam. What would you do with the result besides some vigilante frontier justice? No cop anywhere but daytime children's TV is going to investigate the Case of the Stolen Syrup.
Or Japan apparently, according to some of the comments in this thread.
I’d rather we had a way to change low trust societies into high trust.
Destruction of traditional culture by things like colonialism seems to be an important factor.
Were native peoples of North America high trust between tribes before colonialism?
The larger ancient cities that farmed would be more interesting, especially because today Latin America is one of the lowest trust regions of the world.
Overrated. There's close to 0% of it going on in "low trust societies" anyway. It's not like the average social media zombie in the west is anywhere near an "out of the box" thinker...
Granted, this was almost 40 years ago, but this type of thing can work, even in less civilized places like the US.
Gillette razors on the other hand, are expensive to stock for their size, and easy to steal because of their size.
Denmark is still a fairly high-trust society, not to the level of Switzerland or Japan. We're seeing certain items in supermarkets being locked away or chipped to prevent theft. Now that's not just because of immigrants, Danes steal from the supermarket as well, because prices on many items are increasing rapidly.
If it adds enough of illegal immigrattion or low-grade legal one, it wont be a high trust society anymore.
There are countries that are equal or much smaller than Switzerland with 10x worse crime and low trust. Just look at Jamaica.
And there are countries 12x bigger than Switzerland (like Japan) with high trust and low crime.
LA "the city" might be less but you can't tell where LA ends and it's other parts begin. It's one giant metropolis. Same with NYC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarce...
Also in 2024, Japanese prison sentences were mostly between 1 and 3 years, and about two thirds were fully suspended. https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001436547.pdf (page 20). Assuming an average of two years for the third not-fully-suspended, that works out to 8 months of time spent in prison per person handed a prison sentence.
That results in about a factor of 7 difference in prison population simply due to the difference in average sentence length. Maybe the US should sentence more people to prison but keep each of them there shorter.
Whatever the suspect may say afterwards, they just have to point out to the signed statement and say "but here you confessed".
Source: I have been directly living such occurrence lol.
That's what has been coined the "hostage justice" of Japan (referring in particular to the "long detention times during investigations" part above).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage_justice
Its net effect is that you absolutely do not want to have anything to do with the police to help solve your problems in the society (true problems, not merely e.g. asking for directions). And then you really want to avoid problems at all.
So, you cannot think of them as "friendly useful workers to help solve problems", because they are heavily incentivized and biased to find or invent crimes if you give them the opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but police interviews are recorded in the US?
And also, you always have the right to an attorney? (that's not the case in Japan except if you want to stay 20 days incarcerated while waiting for an attorney, all for a tiny minor dismeanor).
this is commonly said in the USA as well
Maybe I rather have (had) the notion of police as it exists in the UK or some European countries.
There was the French "police de proximité" who acted as friendly allies (it seems it was dismantled in 2003, unfortunately).
You still had a chance for a random bus inspection, but generally you can just walk into the bus and not pay anything, then walk out.
It was so strange at first, to see everyone paying when there was no authority demanding a payment.
Knowing that government trusts people around me to behave like good citizens, and knowing how many people actually follow the rules, definitely helped me to feel safer in the city.
15 years ago you had to put your wallet in the inner pocket because bags and outer pockets routinely got slashed. Now I can leave my bag on a bench. This difference got erased only when economy became more stable, and employment went up.
But I didn't know that I could leave my bag on a bench before I saw with my own eyes that almost everyone tries to be a good citizen. Even if there is no punishment and a small reward for behaving badly
It's decades since I backpacked around Europe on trains and such, and back then slashing pockets and bags was rife. I never traveled anywhere unless I was wearing a money belt strapped to my waist—it held my passport, traveler's checks, large denomination notes and credit cards. I kept my wallet (with only a small amount of cash) in my front jeans pockets—I reckoned that down there I'd notice any slashing pretty quickly. Pants with side pockets were a no-no because they were too easy to pickpocket.
I recall one particularly bad incident in Italy of being surrounded by organised mobs of kids who'd act in ways to distract one's attention whilst others tried to pickpocket one's valuables. I came out unscathed because I was wary from the start.
Later I was living and working in Europe and it was very obvious to me that this sort of crime is much more prevalent in areas where people are unemployed or where there is a great disparity between rich and poor. I've no doubt the solution to such crime is having a society where the distribution of wealth is more equitable.
Re that point and yours about self-checkout for bus rides. That system was implemented a few years ago where I am. I've made the interesting observation that those who travel outside normal to-and-from work hours—say late morning and early afternoon—are the ones most likely to not swipe their travel card on the payment terminal. When I've traveled at those times I'm surprised at the numbers who do not pay. This is in stark contrast to those who are traveling to and from work, at those hours just about everyone pays.
Again, this, no doubt, is an equity/financial issue. Those traveling in the 'off hours' are more likely to be unemployed and or financially hard up.
These machines in UK felt like I was being trusted to pick items myself, and pay myself and I shouldn't break that trust.
Ironically I don't see these self checkout machines in Indian/Turkish/Kurdish etc super stores. In-fact, those stores trust there customers even less, they would ask you to leave your bags/trolleys at the door.
The system will also typically signal for an attendant if you after a short amount of time ensures the weight on the receiving end matches the expected weight of the items scanned so far.
There's not all that much trust involved in it, and I think just being aware of the cameras will make most people who might be tempted think twice.
Of course it's possible to steal still, but it doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs the shrinkage to add up to a lower cost than having more people at the tills.
I also don't like to use those systems if I have many hard to pack items. But at some point I guess you just remove humans completely.
Honesty Boxes in Scotland (2024) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44824684 - Aug 2025 (59 comments)
No one wants used white goods. Fridges, washing machines and dishwashers you can pick up below $100 easily.