
Apple's amusingly round reuse figures - jgrahamc
http://blog.jgc.org/2016/04/apples-amusingly-round-reuse-figures.html
======
davideous
This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856:

> Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2
> m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to
> avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was
> nothing more than a rounded estimate

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest)

~~~
skarap
> This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856:

Or the joke about the museum guide telling visitors the dinosaur skeleton is
100,000,005 years old, because when he started there 5 years ago, an expert
told him it was 100 million years old.

~~~
specialist
I have Creationists in my family. I don't poke the bear.

But I've always wanted to ask how the Earth is perpetually 6,000 years old.

Another question, if the assorted Creationists can't agree on the true age,
then why do they get huffy about science's varying estimates?

Oh well.

~~~
arcticfox
I think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000
years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then
7,000 after that...

Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000
doesn't seem like one to me...

~~~
wlievens
The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century
terrifies me!

~~~
Natsu
What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis
literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD).

\---

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and
third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon,
and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who
is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman,
planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life,
visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth
obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by
masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the
paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not
suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain
mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365
[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html)

~~~
pjvandehaar
I agree with you that nothing will convince creationists. But Origen's Genesis
1 was far from representative of his time. Sure, he's an early example of not
taking Genesis 1 literally, but that's only because he was pushing a gnostic
"the physical world is evil" agenda. People weren't that interested in his
views of creation, and IMO they're only known because his other ideas were
popular. In the places where gnosticism did catch on, it mostly dealt with
what happened before the 7 days of creation (eg John 1), ignoring Genesis 1.
In the next 200 years, the church declared gnosticism to be heretical, making
Origen's non-literal Genesis 1 heretical implicitly without any fucks being
given.

------
noobie
They simply rounded the weights in pounds to the next hundred which resulted
in the extra 644lbs.

Python code:

    
    
        import math
        def roundup(x):
    	return int(math.ceil(x / 100.0)) * 100
    
        materials_in_kgs =  [12750000,6090000,5420000,2050000,1340000,86000,18000,20000,59000,2000,3000,1000]
        materials_in_lbs = [i*2.204 for i in materials_in_kgs]
    
        materials_in_lbs_rounded = [roundup(i) for i in materials_in_lbs]
    
        print sum(materials_in_lbs_rounded)

~~~
jxy
Their marketing decision is really odd. I guess the engineer that came up with
kg numbers decided to round it in 1000kg, which is reasonable to me. Whoever
got the number don't like kg, and converted to lb. Someone else adding the
number up actually counts in 100lb, and thinks it's better just to round up.

And yeah, the last two zero is fishy, I first tried to do a simple round, and
wondered where's the extra 600. It's always fun to write it in a different
language:

    
    
        100×+/⌈.01×2.204×12750000 6090000 5420000 2050000 1340000 86000 18000 20000 59000 2000 3000 1000

~~~
noobie
Exactly. Too bad two wrongs don't make a right.

What language is that?

~~~
jgrahamc
That's APL

~~~
noobie
Thank you! It seems very interesting, terse and powerful.

------
madeofpalk
I find it very amusing that Apple is boasting about reducing the size of
packaging, but they're still shipping accessories from their online store out
in boxes about 15 times larger than required.

[http://i.imgur.com/sMyvO6o.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/sMyvO6o.jpg)

I've noticed this not only with their packaging for third party accessories,
but also for first party ones like the new Magic Mouse 2

~~~
qzervaas
I would assume this is to create greater logistical efficiencies in ways we
don't see.

Side note, I'd be quite interested to see the details of their contracts with
courier companies (e.g. TNT deliver all of their new products here in
Australia, although AusPost send/receive product replacements)

~~~
madeofpalk
Yeah, I always assumed it was to make other efficiencies elsewhere, but it's
difficult to appreciate that when you get an order shipped in two massive
boxes and an envelope when it would easily ship in one
[http://imgur.com/a/Yv9wD](http://imgur.com/a/Yv9wD)

> I'd be quite interested to see the details of their contracts with courier
> companies

This is always something that has interested me. Most of the time I get my
orders from TNT, but sometimes they'll also come from Startrack. I once had a
single order spread over both TNT and Startrack, and a friend ordered iPhone
at the same time as me (during launch) and his came via Startrack and mine
came via TNT. For what it's worth, Apple uses TNT to ship stuff internally to
its retail stores.

------
fredwu
In metric countries (like Australia) Apple does publish the numbers in kg:
[https://www.apple.com/au/environment/resources/](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/resources/)
:)

~~~
Symbiote
But they've clearly been converted to pounds, then back to kilograms.

    
    
      Lead 19,994
      Tin 1,999
      Silver 2,999
      Gold 1,000

~~~
soneil
Interesting. For the UK they just say 1 tonne, 2 tonnes, etc -
[https://www.apple.com/uk/environment/resources/](https://www.apple.com/uk/environment/resources/)

So everyone’s trying to play this as some conspiracy of fictional numbers. All
we’ve actually found is that Apple do localize their site, and possibly some
weaknesses in how they do so.

~~~
maaaats
Which is kinda interesting in itself.

~~~
Symbiote
Evidently so. This is the highest-rated comment I've ever written here.

------
TillE
Somebody clearly never learned about significant figures. This happens all the
time even among people who really should know better, giving false precision
to imprecise measurements.

~~~
kccqzy
It's probably an educational issue as well. In the place where I came from,
the people who ended up writing promotional copy were mostly humanities
students in high school and university, but significant figures is considered
an "intermediate" science topic not taught to humanities students.

~~~
chambo622
In the US, significant figures are included in standard high school science
courses. That doesn't mean they aren't forgotten though.

------
InclinedPlane
Nice catch, I didn't notice that at all when I saw their numbers originally,
though the fact that the Tin and Silver numbers are a multiple of the Gold
numbers should be a big tip off.

One thing I'd like to know more about is how environmentally sensitive this
processing actually is. My guess is that this takes place somewhere where they
do a lot of other extraction from electronics components as well, probably
China, and those processes are not necessarily too environmentally friendly.
Extracting Gold, Tin, Copper, Silver, etc. often involves the use of strong
acids, and the use of many other potentially hazardous chemicals. If care is
taken it can be a relatively clean process, but if care is not taken it's
pretty easy to damage the environment by just dumping the waste byproducts.

Example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu)

------
function_seven
My rant related to this:

How It's Made[1] often has lines like, "The worker places the assembly in a
oven that heats the metal to 1,292 degrees Fahrenheit". Which is an oddly-
specfic temperature before you realize they just converted it from 700°C.
Since it's highly doubtful the oven maintains _precisely_ 700°C—and since it's
not important to the viewer what the exact temperature is anyway—it annoys me
that they don't just say "1,300°F" instead.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_It%27s_Made](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_It%27s_Made)

~~~
colejohnson66
Fun fact: the reason the human body temperature is said to be 98.6 °F is
because of rounding between units. It originally was said to be 100 °F, which
when converted to Celsius is 37.77 °C. Round that down to 37 °C and convert
back and you get the oddly specific 98.6 °F (despite the fact the human body
temperature can fluctuate quite a few degrees [Fahrenheit] throughout the
day).

I read this somewhere (credible), but I can't remember where, so sorry, but no
source. It may be wrong, but the 98.6 °F is oddly specific and happens to line
up perfectly with a round number when converted to °C.

~~~
King-Aaron
When it comes to things like this, I just don't understand how you guys using
the imperial system can do your mental arithmetic easily.

~~~
greggman
We can't! (or I can't)

------
jakozaur
Well, most of the world uses metric system and this dashboard is more about
providing magnitude of recycling to public than an accountant statement.

------
p1mrx
Why bother converting from SI units in the first place? The public will never
get comfortable with metric if publishers keep doing extra work to maintain
the status quo.

Even scientific educational programming (Nova, NASA TV, etc.) often uses US
customary units; metrication is just ridiculously overdue at this point.

------
slyall
No luck finding the 644 missing pounds but I do note that the PDF version of
the document (I assume the original) reports the steel figure as 23,101,000
instead of 28,101,000 . That however seems to be a typo that was fixed later.

I'm guesses the missing 644 pounds is platinum. Several articles on Liam talk
about the metal but it is not included in the list, presumably for space
reasons.

[http://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_...](http://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2016.pdf)

------
tim333
Journalism I guess. Apple recovered 2,204 lbs sounds better than about a
tonne.

~~~
robin_reala
Does it? Mind you, I conceptualise weights in kilos then have to make an
effort to translate to pounds so maybe that sounds worse automatically.

~~~
gordjw
Probably just because of the larger number I'd say.

~~~
paublyrne
They should given the number in grammes.

------
analog31
Lots of examples abound, of numbers that can be explained by unit conversion.

31.8 mm bicycle handlebar = 1-1/4 inches

68 degrees F (Jimmy Carter recommendation during energy crisis) = 20 C

It's also interesting that the US units of measure are _defined_ in terms of
metric. For instance there's no standard inch. The inch is defined as 25.4 mm.

------
King-Aaron
I don't know if anyone here has ever loaded an articulated semi-trailer with a
loader, but something to note is that these figures (by the ton) are generally
what a company like Apple would receive from the company doing the logistics
here. Having figures by the whole ton means you can easily calculate how many
trucks, containers and ships are needed for the process.

Somewhere, there would be precise figures to the kilogram, but the logistics
mob wouldn't usually pass that on as when you're dealing with this sort of
level of material, it's easier to work in lots of a thousand kilos as opposed
to individual kilograms.

------
tathagatadg
I have a off topic question. How have you reused your old phone? I've seen
some typical lists on the web - but nothing impressive given how powerful
these small computers are.

~~~
milankragujevic
I use it as a surveillance camera with a free Android app that streams the
picture from the camera as an MJPEG using a built in HTTP server. It's pretty
nice, I forwarded the ports on my modem and now I can see what's happening in
my home from anywhere in the world :)

~~~
camhenlin
I do the same with an old iPhone running AirBeam. Very handy and much easier
to deal with than some poorly secured IoT camera or DVR with broken security

------
mib32
The russian version have it in tonnes, which is funny looking:

Золото 1

[https://www.apple.com/ru/environment/resources/](https://www.apple.com/ru/environment/resources/)

------
tacos
"911 Metallurgist, which helps mines and recyclers extract precious metals
from ore and, apparently, phones, has exhaustively checked the iPhones and
other mobile devices. Each iPhone 5, for instance, contains $1.58 of gold,
$.36 of silver, $.05 of platinum, and $.12 of copper."

I'd posit the missing 644 pounds (<1kg) is platinum.

~~~
carlob
644 pounds >> 1 kg. Actually slightly less than 300 kg

------
wrong_variable
how is this a controversy ?

~~~
jgrahamc
Who said it was? More like an amusing easter egg.

------
IIAOPSW
I thought the patent on round numbers got thrown out?

------
toisanji
Why is this at the top of hn?

~~~
jgrahamc
Because people voted it up and found it amusing?

~~~
jrockway
But oh noes, with the most critical reading possible it could conceivably
portray something negative about Apple!

I'm amused that the vast majority of the comments here are mad at you for
finding something mildly interesting and writing an article about it. HN is a
weird place at times.

------
kfir
Of course these are not exact numbers, did Apple ever say they are?! The point
of this blog post eludes me.

~~~
jeeyoungk
What do you mean they are not exact numbers? 2204 does seem to imply 4
significant digits.

------
rdiddly
They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value
extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though, when you realize how
much usable material they're recovering on the cheap. They're basically just
doing the obvious, efficient and profitable thing. It has taken markets a long
time to catch up with how obvious it is, though. As metal prices go up, it
will become even more profitable, and they'll be glad they already have the
infrastructure in place.

~~~
xoa
>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value
extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though

No it doesn't. At all. Doing the right thing _should_ , at the least, be worth
positive social recognition ("public relations") at any level, from the
largest corporations right down to individuals who work to keep their local
neighborhood clean. Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be
_profitable_ so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it.
That's part of the point of enforcing the price inclusion of externalities.

There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's
efficient and profitable. I very much dislike the self-flagellating attitude
that somehow comes to the conclusion that in order to be worthy of praise
doing good must be ultimately rare, unpleasant and costly. Sometimes that is
the case, and extra praise and recognition is part of the feedback loop to try
to make it more common, but in general society should work to make barriers to
positive change as low as possible.

Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and
running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and
human) involved in setting it up in the first place. As always, that capital
could be invested elsewhere, in areas that might be equally or more profitable
and involve less risk and variability as well. Merely looking outcomes with
risk-weighting and considering opportunity costs is always a mistake. You
wrote:

>It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is

Sometimes you may know better then the entirety of the market (business
opportunity!), but sometimes you should consider that perhaps the markets
recognize something that you don't. Maybe the reason this hasn't been more
common is that it only looks "obvious" on the surface and taking into account
life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that
it has not been worth it.

So when companies do forge ahead it is still worthy of recognition,
particularly to the extent that it may encourage more to follow and ultimately
make it more effective for everyone.

~~~
rdiddly
Where we agree:

"Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free
Market can efficiently optimize towards it." = "It has taken markets a long
time to catch up with how obvious it is."

"There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's
efficient and profitable" = the absence of anything negative said about it. I
said it was obvious [good], efficient [good] and profitable [good, but mostly
for Apple]. And that they're congratulating themselves to reap PR value
(absolutely true).

"...taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth
most places have found that it has not been worth it." = "It has taken markets
a long time to catch up with how obvious it is." And the reason they're
catching up now is because of scarcity, and because costs of wholesale looting
metals from the commons are beginning to climb to their true value, i.e.
irreplaceability. Apple's costs for recycling include the gift card they give
you for turning in your old device -- which is some quantity of their own
goods & services at cost -- and shipping & processing costs, all of which are
surely considerable but will soon be dwarfed by mining costs if they aren't
already.

"Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and
running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and
human) involved in setting it up in the first place." = "...they'll be glad
they already have the infrastructure in place." Starting to think you didn't
read more than 10-12 words. And also why are you trying to make the argument
that it's difficult and costly for them, when this is the much-hated self-
flagellation argument?

Where we disagree:

1) Free Market, not being a proper noun or deity, should not be capitalized,
no pun intended.

2) There is no answer to "What is 'good'?" and there is no answer to "Is
recycling 'good'?" "Good" and "bad" are overrated and overused concepts best
suited to the cognitively impaired, religious folk, others who desire a
simplistic mental model of the world, and those who want to play out emotional
issues by getting all worked-up over good-bad absolutes instead of talking
neutrally. Lots of people say "It is what it is" but few actually mean it.

3) There is no self-flagellation involved in noticing that when someone does
something rare, unpleasant and costly, it's remarkable for those very reasons;
whereas when they do something efficient, profitable and (from the standpoint
of someone who already recognizes the irreplaceability of Earth) obvious, it's
somewhat less remarkable. German and Dutch companies (for just one example
that I've personally witnessed), have been quietly recycling for decades.

4) I'm not in love with Apple.

