Earlier quoted context omitted.
342343
I am the same person.
23433234
Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
51–60 of 101 posts
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#52The russian version have it in tonnes, which is funny looking:
Золото 1
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#53Who the hell cares?
Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals. (Substantive dismissals would be more valuable.)
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#54They 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_…
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 1000Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am the same person.
23433234
There's a difference between pointing out the existence of a similar comment on the post and stating that I have stolen the comment. Assumptions can make fools of us all.
How do you suggest that I make it clear? Keybase doesn't allow for G+ verification.
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
23433234
There's a difference between pointing out the existence of a similar comment on the post and stating that I have stolen the comment. Assumptions can make fools of us all. How do you suggest that I make it clear? Keybase doesn't allow for G+ verification.
1241241
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#57Somebody 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.
In the US, significant figures are included in standard high school science courses. That doesn't mean they aren't forgotten though.
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#58In metric countries (like Australia) Apple does publish the numbers in kg: https://www.apple.com/au/environment/resources/ :)
As an American, I feel it's a little bit condescending for them to assume we can't consume the numbers in metric units. I also kind of wonder how much gold they actually recovered. Marketing logic says they rounded up, but what if they only recovered, say, ten bushels worth, do they still round up to a tonne?
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#59They 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_…
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…
Exactly. Too bad two wrongs don't make a right.
What language is that?
Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I understood that (some) creationists thought that the world was created in 4004 BC [1]. Which would make it 6020 years old now. That's close enough to 6000 years to just say that.