Live data from Hacker News

Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

blog.jgc.org

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#41
post #34
post #33

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_…

Winner! Plus style points for providing code.

342343

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#43
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.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#44

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 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

On the other hand, this way they get to make fewer kinds of boxes, which means keeping less empty packages around the factory. They're depending on you to recycle that box. :-)

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#45

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

So, in order to prevent people from assuming it was incorrect, they made it incorrect...

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#46

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

[deleted]

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#47
post #19

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.

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.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#48
post #37

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

> 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.

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.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#49
post #47
post #19

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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#50
post #33

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_…

Good work! Slight nitpick: the author gave you credit in an update but neglected to link to your comment. Thankfully it wasn't hard to find.
Post reply on HN