> 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
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.
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?
Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...
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
I recently read a fun article speculating (decoding) the values given for years and ages were Sumerian (or Babylonian) in origin, had different units and symbology, so it's not appropriate to interpret those values as literal base 10 values, which is a much more modern system.
...I've always understood that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted and written by the various disciples.
Ya, I've heard that a lot, when I was in the church, and now from my fundie relatives.
Starts to break down when you start to trace and relate origin myths. Mithras, Horus for the New Testament. Zoroastrian origin of monotheism. A student of religions could likely go on and on. I'm just a casual reader.
Every big chief thru the ages has actively remythed their host culture, claimed divine providence, and presents his/herself as something entirely new.
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]
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
What language is that?
How do you suggest that I make it clear? Keybase doesn't allow for G+ verification.
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
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)
> 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.
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.
Based on your comment 'as an American', I was responding with my perspective on the entire class of people, not a subset.
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.
How It's Made 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.
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.
The Fahrenheit scale was originally defined to have 0° at the coldest measurable value at the lab bench (salt-water slurry), 32° at the freezing point of water, and 96° for human body temperature. Why use those numbers? It's really easy to make even gradations with with powers of two: just half the length each time. Pretty clever, but of course this has a problem in that there's no guarantee that the three points are co-linear. So it was eventually redefined to simply be defined based upon the freezing/boiling points of water — from 32-212, based upon approximate extrapolations of the scale at the time. They may have even aimed for an even 180 degree separation between the two points. And this leads to the exact 9/5ths conversion ratio (212-32 / 100) from Celsius.
I think the 37°C -> 98.6°F is just a coincidence.
Back to my wife. She is a native Russian, and when I asked her what they check for in Russia, she said 36.6 celcius, so that would help support your theory.
If I lived there, it would annoy me more that they don't say 700°C in the USA...
But for temperature, I just can't relate to °C. I've been too indoctrinated in °F so long. But with higher values, like 700, it's not hard to double it in my head and get a reasonable approximation. So yeah, just give it to me in whatever unit the factory is actually using. Especially if there's a visible control panel in the shot.
Britain switched weather forecast units in the 1960s, so my grandma uses °C, and she's 85. But maybe she had more incentive, since she liked going on holiday elsewhere in Europe.
Even scientific educational programming (Nova, NASA TV, etc.) often uses US customary units; metrication is just ridiculously overdue at this point.
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.
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.
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.
I'd posit the missing 644 pounds (<1kg) is platinum.
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.
for instance 136,036 lbs reported from apple is converted from the rounded 59,000 kg.
The 59,000 kg comes off more as a rounded number than 136,036 lbs.
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.
"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.