I&#x27;m sorry, but none of this is making sense to me.<p>&gt;A queue is inefficient because it causes everyone to wait e.g. 15 minutes during the busy period. If you use a stack instead of a queue then a person who arrived at 11AM and sees the number of people in line in front of them continue to increase will correctly deduce that continuing to wait is futile. They won&#x27;t be served until ~1PM when the entire backlog is filled, so assuming they aren&#x27;t allowed to reposition themselves in line immediately, they might as well just leave and come back later.<p>Which is a big assumption.<p>That&#x27;s exactly what the GP was warning about: people will just go into a different &quot;meta-queue&quot; in which they vie for being the technically-&quot;last&quot; person to enter the real (LIFO) queue [1], with all the externalities that involves. People are still spending time waiting, they just have to do it in a more roundabout way. No free lunch (in money or time).<p>&gt;And maybe resolve to get there by 10:45 next time, when demand is lower and everyone is still being served immediately. Which is where the efficiency comes from -- more people arrive either before or after the rush to avoid getting stuck at the bottom of the stack, so the wait time goes down.<p>So ... the entire counterintuitive result is just an artifact of how this method makes it more expensive (in time spent, assuming away the meta-queueing problem above) at peak times? But then it&#x27;s no different from the case for peak-hour pricing (or the opposite in the case of happy hours and early bird specials).<p>So it&#x27;s not that this is somehow more efficient, it&#x27;s apparently just another way to make peak hour service more miserable. But worse, it does it in a very convoluted way that shifts the entire problem over to &quot;how to game the official record of when I entered the stack&quot;.<p>This whole study seems to confuse a lot more than it clarifies.<p>[1] which, I know, would no longer be a queue but a stack