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

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

thezvi.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

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

#231

Post by bluGill »

dmingod666 wrote: post #178
justinator wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we can talk about dropping atomic bombs on Japan during WWII if you want. The discussion isn't going to be a very simple one.

The Japanese were ready to surrender weeks before the bombs were dropped. So it wasn't such a hard discussion really..

Sure, and how many more weeks would they have remained ready to surrender, but never had done it? We don't know. We know they were beat in all but the surrender, but we also know countries through out history have fought on long after their loss was obvious. Japan has some "interesting" internal politics going on, even if they had formally surrendered it isn't clear if the military would stop fighting (Army and Navy needs to be considered separately).

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

#232

Post by mcguire »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #134
krisoft wrote: 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…

> is the only one worth going into Sure, when your critical system goes down an RCA is hugely important and ultimately you have to apply a fix that addresses the core issue to avoid it happening again in the future. But, at the time that the system is actually down it seems like the most important first step (once you understand the problem) is to get the system running again ASAP. This can give you the runway to fix…

Assuming no other conditions change, how long will it take them to use up the extra storage space?

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

#233

Post by dragonwriter »

Invictus0 wrote: post #206
inetknght wrote: post #115

> * 14. Everyone in the port, or at least a lot of them, knew this was happening.* > 15. None of those people managed to do anything about the rule, or even get word out about the rule. No reporters wrote up news reports. No one was calling for a fix. The supply chain problems kept getting worse and mostly everyone agreed not to talk about it much and hope it would go away. It's been my experience that nearly all of…

There was an article about this phenomenon recently--the author called it the "thermocline of truth". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27977056

> There was an article about this phenomenon recently--the author called it the "thermocline of truth".

The author was using terminology introduced quite a while ago by Bruce F. Webster: https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-...

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

#234

Post by bluGill »

smileysteve wrote: post #105
joshgachnang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a long enough timeframe and nothing else changing, yes it would just fill up. Realistically, it gives them breathing room to get the rest of the rate up. I am curious what the costs of making a new container and recycling the old instead of shipping them back is. Trade isn't symmetrical. I assume shipping them back is cheap because otherwise the ships are going back nearly empty, so it's almost free to ship them b…

I've read anecdotes that China is making new containers instead of accepting old containers. This could be because buffers aren't getting them back in time or because China needed a new market for steel

Containers have a lifespan, so China has always been making containers. When containers don't come back you can buy a new one. Shipping them back empty is a lot cheaper than buying a new one, but only if you can get them shipped back. The price to ship a container back empty is low enough that some ships decide it isn't worth it.

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

#235

Post by iudqnolq »

IncRnd wrote: post #169
whateveracct wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Referring to him diminutively as a bureaucrat is unfair. HNers have pretty much no understanding or respect for what it means to realistically be in public service. They treat the realities as unfortunate errors ripe for optimization.

You should look up the word bureaucrat. It was used correctly in the article.

A mayor isn't a bureaucrat by most definitions.

Webster:

Bureaucrat: A member of a bureaucracy

Bureaucracy: a large group of people who are involved in running a government but who are not elected

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucracy

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

#236

Post by bluGill »

corpdronejuly wrote: post #215
foolinaround wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can find containers for $400 online, maybe even free, if you have a truck to pick up..

I've been tempted to pay someone to pour a concrete pad and buy a few to try and build a cabin on. With prices that low it's worth looking at.

Do careful research. Many have done that, but the negatives of containers for that purpose are rarely stated.

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

#237

Post by dragonwriter »

gouggoug wrote: post #68

> 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…

> Infinitely stacked containers would probably be an eyesore to be honest.

Also, how high of a stack of containers do you feel safe working around in the next major SoCal earthquake?

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

#238

Post by mcguire »

YokoZar wrote: post #150
gouggoug wrote: post #68

> 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.

What is the evidence that the reason is aesthetics? Other posters have claimed that it is a fire department ordinance.

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

#239

Post by bluGill »

someguydave wrote: post #138
briffle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the price and availability of steel, i'm kind of suprised nobody is trying to scrap and recycle them.

Probably china uses low quality steel to make those containers. But you could melt containers and they would take up less space to ship back to China

Or just make collapsible containers. Bolt the corners (where all the strength is) on right and then take them apart. Needs careful engineering work, but it seems like it should be possible to standardize then and then machines at either end can take them apart and stack into a standard container dimension.
Post reply on HN