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

It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 255 posts

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#191

Post by pluies »

unwind wrote: post #182
wcunning wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1) that "anvil" is cast iron or potentially at that size, semi hollow steel. It's not great for doing anvil things and will likely break, whereas the "reputable" one is cast steel or wrought iron, both of which are much much much tougher for beating on. 2) The more interesting thing here is the market for kettlebells and other heavy weights -- they can go up to hundreds of pounds, though typically top out…

I realize I don't understand much of the life of someone so strong, but how do you wear out a 40+ kg kettlebell often enough to have a thought-out replacement plan?

I assume the new round would be of heavier kettlebells as OP continues to develop strength? If not, I’d also be interested in knowing how one wears out kettlebells!

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#193

Post by tempestn »

dang wrote: post #113
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "physically" is redundant. It could be legally impossible, or practically impossible. I played around with the title and character limit for a minute, and managed to get: "A small flat-rate USPS box's weight limit is physically impossible to exceed". How's that?

That sounds awkward to me. The best way to shorten titles is to omit words - then you keep the prosody of the original. I've taken another crack at it. Now someone will complain about USPS being missing, but "flat rate" implies someone's rate, and it's not as if USPS is a misleading surprise. (Submitted title was "It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a USPS flat rate box". First edit was "It is…

Perhaps there would be some value to extending the allowable length for titles, but having a soft limit equal to (or even slightly less than) the current one? If over the soft limit there could be a message that it's preferable to shorten titles to under that length if it can be done without losing useful information.

In theory that way you still get titles shortened where possible, but don't have to wrestle with this kind of issue. Of course the cost is added complexity, so likely not worth it. Maybe just increase the limit then?

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#194

Post by jaclaz »

jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

Maybe not exactly a thriving industry, i.e. more like a niche.

Anecdotally I once had to fly to another EU city (some 1,200 km distance), get a rented car, drive to the house of the vendor at night (he took the pieces home after we phoned him at like 5 PM on a friday, a good reason to be friends with people) then drive to another city to be able to take an early flight back next morning.

The items were (at the x-ray machine in the airport) a bit suspect (they were drilling bits for a tunneling machine, in practice looking a lot like hand grenades) but I managed to convince the police they were spare parts/consumables.

But that was years before checks at boarding gates were tightened (yes, we could bring a water bottle) I wonder if they would pass today.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#195

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #118
peterlk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend once ordered a hot tub with 2 day shipping on Amazon Prime, and has often wondered about the economics of that purchase.

"Free" shipping of that sort of thing tends to be factored into the selling price. I'll occasionally find large, heavy items on Amazon that are 20-30% more than in a local store for this reason.

It also means that your average sub-25-cent part on Amazon costs $5.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#196

Post by yeetsfromhellL2 »

sgtnoodle wrote: post #139
EvanAnderson wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll throw in my "strange things flying on planes" story. An ex-girlfriend worked for a large yogurt manufacturer. One of their manufacturing plants had an issue with "the culture" (the bacterial culture used for fermenting the yogurt, that is). She said product was exploding out of containers in the incubation rooms. The operators decided to sterilize the plant and bring a sample of bacterial culture from another of…

Decades ago, my university's solar car team had a problem at the competition. Their super light magnesium wheels were cracking and failing. The team's biggest supporter and a true pioneer of CNC machining, Chuck, started calling around to local machine shops to see if anyone could turn some new wheels out of aluminum. He found one machinist who agreed to do the work, but laughed because he knew there wasn't any alumi…

If somebody pulls strings like that for you, you need to use the aluminum wheels.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#198

Post by uuyi »

myself248 wrote: post #98
jmyeet wrote: post #78

What many may not realize is that there's a thriving industry in sending passengers on planes for the sole purpose of them taking things from A to B. Years ago, you could get discounted flights to Europe where you couldn't check in any luggage. Why? That allowance was taken up by documents for various clients. This was usually quicker than any courier services at the time. I've had friends who worked in the oil and g…

Some years back, there was a "can't happen" problem with a telephone switch, such that the problem had "contaminated" the running databases on both processor cards, and the system was no longer capable of recovering itself. It needed a new card, and it needed it yesterday. The manufacturer scrambled it down to the local airport, where they bought it a passenger ticket on the next plane out. While it was in the air, t…

I’ve been that guy. I hired a long wheelbase van here and ended up driving 6x DIMMs in a box on the front seat.

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#199

Post by ComradePhil »

radicality wrote: post #6

Semi related - a few months ago, while not fully sober, I was aimlessly browsing through Amazon and ended up owning a set of two 1.5inch cubes - one aluminium, one tungsten. It’s kind of a silly purchase considering it’s a lot of money for 2 metal cubes, but it’s honestly very impressive just how heavy that small cube is - both objectively, and when compared to the aluminium cube. Also makes for a great talking point…

It literally cures mortality. https://youtu.be/C7EocA1hsCU

Re: It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box

#200

Post by [deleted] »

jhugo wrote: post #184
rags2riches wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought terrorists had done the "check your bag and don't board" thing enough for it to be disallowed. But maybe this story took place a long time ago?

Many (most?) large airlines take cargo directly like this. It's not so much "check your bag and don't board" as it is "consign this cargo shipment" which happens to be taken on the same aircraft as passengers and their luggage. Unlike checked luggage you need to declare the contents of the packages etc., and presumably there is security screening.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN