Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 462 posts

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#371

Post by SilasX »

fumblebee wrote: post #352

This incident has already been added to opening section for the Suez Canal Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal I wonder what makes something significant enough to be added to this section. A quick scan of the page shows some interesting tidbits that aren't present in the opening (to me, more noteworthy - so far - than the ongoing blockage): > The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on worl…

>The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on world trade. Combined with the American transcontinental railroad completed six months earlier, it allowed the world to be circled in record time.

Interesting! That prompted me to look up Around the World in 80 Days, and it turns it out was published 3 years later (1872), using those pieces as part of the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Day...

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#373

Post by Draken93 »

sildur wrote: post #322
Draken93 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient. The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.

The law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.

"But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#374

Post by Draken93 »

jlokier wrote: post #332
Draken93 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient. The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.

> You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists. The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing. If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to…

I know, I should have clarified that. But to be honest, most newspapers use more then the essential tokens.

As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button.

I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#375

Post by minitoar »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #362
fumblebee wrote: post #352

This incident has already been added to opening section for the Suez Canal Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal I wonder what makes something significant enough to be added to this section. A quick scan of the page shows some interesting tidbits that aren't present in the opening (to me, more noteworthy - so far - than the ongoing blockage): > The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on worl…

This is a big ship. There's no nearby facility to unload or service it. Its not something you bring tools in your pickup truck to solve the problem. If its not immediately resolvable with the ships own facilities, then its not clear it can be solved in less than a-long-time. Maybe years? Its 200 million pounds. It holds 20,000 units. To unload it would take building a facility on-site. And maybe a rail line to carry…

I will eat my hat if this takes a year to resolve, or costs 1 billion dollars (excluding lost revenue due to closure, I have no idea what that is).

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#376

Post by yrro »

arnaudsm wrote: post #212
yrro wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is the environmental harm

Super-ships emit ~5g_Co2/Ton/km on average[1], while railway is 2-35g, air transport is 700-3000g and truck transport is 100-2000g. Surprisingly, the bigger the boat the more effective. We tend to have a bias against larger machines, but often they can be the cleanest in proportion. [1] https://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/assets/documents/86...

5g per km-tonne adds up to a lot though doesn't it.

"Maritime transport emits around 940 million tonnes of CO2 annually and is responsible for about 2.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (3rd IMO GHG study)."

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en

The problem is that we (as a species) are moving far too much, far too far.

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#377

Post by bobthepanda »

akudha wrote: post #345
bobthepanda wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good deal of it probably has to do with how crazy customs gets in every single port, and how to properly insure goods. (Lloyd’s of London got its start in marine insurance.) If your paperwork is mostly driven by other actors tech probably won’t help all that much. Tech has not made significant inroads in disrupting American health insurance, for example.

Is there a reason these customs processes can't be simplified? Or is it due to some perverse capitalist reason, like TurboTax lobbying against simpler tax code?

- Every set of goods has its own regulations. Ships carry all sorts of goods.

- Every country has different customs regulations, so paperwork is not really that reusable across ports.

- Customs is a huge source of fraud. In poorly managed countries it is one of the prime vectors for bribery and corruption. So destination ports have to verify everything even if they do receive the paperwork, because there’s no trust.

Generally speaking if you want to cut customs red tape your options are some kind of free trade deal (which is not necessarily popular and never covers all types of goods), or banding together with a bunch of different countries to submit to one supranational entity like the EU. In fact we have a live example of how complicated customs arrangements can be; look at how trade from UK to EU has been disrupted by Brexit and the introduction of customs.

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#378

Post by candyyfl »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #362
fumblebee wrote: post #352

This incident has already been added to opening section for the Suez Canal Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal I wonder what makes something significant enough to be added to this section. A quick scan of the page shows some interesting tidbits that aren't present in the opening (to me, more noteworthy - so far - than the ongoing blockage): > The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on worl…

This is a big ship. There's no nearby facility to unload or service it. Its not something you bring tools in your pickup truck to solve the problem. If its not immediately resolvable with the ships own facilities, then its not clear it can be solved in less than a-long-time. Maybe years? Its 200 million pounds. It holds 20,000 units. To unload it would take building a facility on-site. And maybe a rail line to carry…

It’s not being salvaged at the most promising way, the many tugs that surrounds are just not fully capable, the biggest of all is less than 200ton bollard pull, together with 2 less than 100ton. Surely it’s for the reason of both cost saving and only gathering available resources from around? If it get stuck for longer than few days I bet better capable tugs would appear to end the scene

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#379

Post by mikey_p »

wang_li wrote: post #364
tleb_ wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source? The boat's draught is 15.7m according to [0] and the Suez canal supports ships with a draft up to 20m and is 23m to 24m deep.[1] [0] https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9811000 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal#Capacity

Am I misreading the AIS data there? I read that to mean that it's a 15.7m vessel in 16m water.

I believe that is stating that it draws a maximum of 16m, but is currently drawing 15.7m

Re: Suez canal blocked by a massive ship

#380

Post by candyyfl »

lmilcin wrote: post #244
brazzy wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cause for that accident seems to have been strong wind, which apparently makes these huge ships very hard or even impossible to maneuver when they are going slow. If true, then the "systemic issue" is only that ships are getting too big.

Hi. Skipper here (nothing of the size of the ship in question, obviously:). Ships of ANY size are hard or impossible to maneuver when they are going slow and have a blackout. The size doesn't matter. The control surfaces only work when they move with regards to water. The ship that does not move is uncontrollable with rudder and it needs to use something else to help it maneuver. This something else can be a tugboat…

Can I also ask if it’s true that such a beast like the ever given would have as little as 30% of back maneuver power compare to forward sail?
Post reply on HN