Live data from Hacker News

Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

blog.jgc.org

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#11
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

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#15
post #7
post #2

Why is this at the top of hn?

Because people voted it up and found it amusing?

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.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#16
post #8

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

The author is saying the the numbers were rounded when based in another unit.

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.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#18
post #3

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

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.

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

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#20
post #8

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

The author is saying the the numbers were rounded when based in another unit. 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.

and my point was that those rounded numbers (in another unit) were just that rounded numbers, I didn't see anything amusing about it.
Post reply on HN