Live data from Hacker News

An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

thezvi.wordpress.com

141–150 of 316 posts

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#141
post #93

> There was a rule in the Port of Los Angeles saying you could only stack shipping containers two containers high. This is incorrect. There was a zoning rule which affected truck yards in Long Beach and Los Angeles. Truck yards. Not the port itself. As stated in the linked tweets actually. But if you don't believe that you can just google an image of the Port of Los Angeles from let's say 2019 and count how high the…

Yea, that stood out to me too the stacking limit was not at the port..

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the CEO has a different level of understanding of logistics compared to the major. They may be looking at the same port, but they see different things. The CEO saw bottlenecks like Neo sees the Matrix

Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?

Why didn’t private industry work to solve the problem that they created?

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?

> Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts? Because we pay our politicians terribly low compared to other leadership positions. Our best leaders have gone to Facebook / Google to make better ads. It makes no sense for a 18-year-old going into college to study political theo…

This. But it's not like politicians aren't intelligent and ambitious, so many of them look to earn money in other ways, ie the stock market, which gets dangerously close to conflicts of interest because they are, by design, there to regulate industry.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?

> Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts? Because we pay our politicians terribly low compared to other leadership positions. Our best leaders have gone to Facebook / Google to make better ads. It makes no sense for a 18-year-old going into college to study political theo…

You’re at (or very near) a million a year at the Director level in FAANG.

My lowest paid manager makes $250k.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#145
From near the end: "My going theory on why the news isn’t being shared is because it is being instinctively suppressed by the implicit forces that filter out such actions from the official narratives. The whole scenario might give people the idea that we could do things because they’re helpful. It gives status to someone for being helpful. It highlights our general failure to do helpful things, and plausibly blames all our supply chain (and also plausibly all our civilizational) problems on stupid pointless rules and a failure to do obviously correct things. That’s not a good look for power, and doesn’t help anyone’s narratives, so every step of the way such things get silenced."

No, I think the news isn't being shared because it doesn't stoke fear, greed, or anger. The economics of the news causes people in those industries to (consciously or subconsciously) prioritize headlines which stoke fear, greed, or anger. "We solved a problem" doesn't stoke any of that.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#146
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Ryan Peterson's description, it was more that there was no space left to unload full containers from ships or empties from trucks to then pick up a full one from the ship. In essence container grid lock.

Yep. Both the rx and tx buffers were full and the port was dropping packets. (There were both container ships waiting to offload and trucks waiting to offload full and empty containers, respectively.) Now that buffer size has been increased, there is more bandwidth to available to actually move containers. Since the spike is temporary, the problem has gone away. If we were permanently faced with more containers then,…

By this analogy, the politician literally "downloaded more RAM!"

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#147
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flexport's technology had nothing to do with this, though. The CEO literally took a boat ride around the bay and looked at what was happening + talked to some people. He did the thing everyone assumes public officials do, but who clearly are not doing.

I'm pretty sure the CEO knew beforehand and crafted a narrative.

Better than being in a position to solve it and doing nothing..

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#148
post #109

Apropos the importance of building new container shipping ports in places that don’t have land scarcity, traffic, and well organized NIMBYs? Let me introduce you to the port of Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia. The port of Prince Rupert has 5 (as in “can be counted on one hand”) berths and transfers 1.2M containers per year. The port of Long Beach has 80 (yes, eight-zero!!!) berths and only transfers 8.1M c…

I wonder if the containers per berth number goes down as the number of berths increases in one port because other bottlenecks appear. I suspect adding more ports is actually a way to maintain efficiency here, but there's probably logistical challenges with that (skilled workforce, supply chain support, road network & other infrastructure to handle the volume, etc). There's probably also far more cost to adding a port than adding a berth.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were supposedly trucks that couldn’t be loaded because they had no place to get rid of the empty container they currently had. So truck loading rate was low, not because of the speed of the workers and cranes, but because of the availability of the trucks. So this is supposed to allow the truck loading rate to go up by making it easier for trucks to become available. I don’t know if that will happen, but this i…

Increasing a buffer size can also make it look like the problem is solved temporarily when you really have a rate issue. It seems that filled containers are coming in at a faster rate than empty containers are going out. We've increased the buffer for empty containers at the dock but did we address the outgoing rate problem? Why wouldn't the buffer just fill again? I wonder if we've reached a point where manufacturin…

From the tweets, "containers are not fungible".

Cosco containers need to be returned to X, Maersk containers go back to Y, etc.

If you can't sort and aggregate your empties efficiently, you further slow down the rate of return.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#150

> A bureaucrat insisting that stacked containers are an eyesore, causing freight to pile up because trucks are stuck sitting on empty containers, thus causing a cascading failure that destroys supply lines and brings down the economy. That certainly sounds like something that was in an early draft of Atlas Shrugged but got crossed out as too preposterous for anyone to take seriously. This is a little disingenuous. Fr…

Chesterton's fence is satisfied here: it asks us to know why a rule was put into place so that we know we aren't missing something when we change it.

In this case we do know the reason why: aesthetics. The side effects are just greater now, so out the rule goes.

Post reply on HN