It is physically impossible to exceed the weight limit for a Small Flat Rate Box • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by CPLX » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #205

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…

> 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. So someone out there must have made a courier-as-a-service website for this? Sign up some people to be on standby, with a passport and a list of countries they have visa for, list them with their current location. Person signs up to potentially make a few grand if the…

It’s a whole industry it’s called freight forwarding, and this specific thing is the cargo division of commercial passenger airlines.

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

#232

Post by cnelsenmilt » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

versteegen wrote: post #213

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…

Sending human remains! I recently discovered it's cheaper to go in person with someone's ashes in your hand luggage on an international flight than to have them sent by air (actually, you can't send human remains by postal service or courier), and much easier too. I wonder whether anyone offers it as a commercial service (maybe as a side income?). It's too bad you can't take cadavers with you on flights, the cost of…

> you can't send human remains by postal service or courier), and much easier too. I wonder whether anyone offers it as a commercial service

Wouldn't that just be a courier then?

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

#233

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 6:36 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #225

dang wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The described practice sounds like it would make HN an excellent source of training data for a machine learning model to generate appropriate titles for a piece of long-form content.

It would!

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

#234

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #193

dang wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I have occasionally thought of writing code to allow this (sort of a 'burst' feature for occasional exceptions) but the 80 char limit is not a real problem in practice. In fact it functions as a classic creative constraint.

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

#235

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 6:40 PM UTC

joemi wrote: post #157

ajju wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ode to @dang (fueled by three amazing strong coffees in Ginza and the first idle moments on the interwebs I've enjoyed in a long long time) HN: one of the last remaining Great Good Places of the Internet, a lone tavern in an iconic gateway town to the now not-so-wild west. Beyond the western borders of this little town, the tech gold rush has both expanded to epic proportions, affecting all the economies in the wo…

I thought there was one (or more?) other moderator, and it's not all just dang?

That is true. I'm just the only one commenting publicly these days.

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

#236

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

ant6n wrote: post #207

dang wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 use „Small Flat Rate Box“ rather than „small flat-rate box“, to bring it in line with usps website and indicate that it’s the name of a specific product.

Good point. Edited!

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

#237

Post by ortusdux » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #69

ortusdux wrote: post #29

I have a 115lb shipment of small metal parts that needs to be across the country before Wed. Both FedEx and UPS quoted me ~$750 to ship it in a 12"x8"x8" OSB box via 2-day shipping. Fedex one rate boxes have a weight limit of 50lbs. The small boxes are $31/ea to ship. I just finished breaking the shipment up into 3 parts. Heck, next day would be ~$300.

There's a reason for it. Package sizes and weight limits are optimized for workers who are going to carry them. So yes in your case the total weight loaded on to the truck or plane may be the same, but loading/unloading 3x40 lb boxes and carrying them to your front porch is very different from doing the same with a single 115 lb box. Airlines work the same way. 2x50 lb bags cost $30 each. One single 100lb bag has a $…

I also priced out not using a flat rate box w/ FedEx. They quoted:

- 1 small 40lb box - $260

- 3 small 40lb boxes grouped as one shipment - $750

- 8 small 15lb boxes, one shipment - $840

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

#238

Post by Dove » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #146

Dove wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny story, I had the opposite experience this morning. I was putting together a care package for a friend, which included a box of ammo for a rifle we'd enjoyed shooting together. I was just about to take it by the post office when I thought I'd check if I was supposed to mark it in some special way or something, and promptly discovered that this was ILLEGAL. With rather frightening penalties. But UPS would cheerfu…

Completely legal to ship, you just have to pay a hazmat fee which restricts how the box is shipped and a big label goes on the outside showing that it is ordinance. Similar to shipping a lithium battery has to be declared with a phone number to call.

Legal to ship, illegal to ship via USPS! See section 341.21.c: https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c3_019.htm

A distinction which blew my mind as I had had the ammo shipped to me recently, and it would never have occurred to me that there was a problem, so long as it was packaged safely.

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

#239

Post by TMWNN » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 8:39 PM UTC

rawling wrote: post #177

TMWNN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS 1096L box ( https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping-supplies/prior... >) fits perfectly inside the USPS padded flat rate envelope ( https://store.usps.com/store/product/shipping-supplies/prior... >). Great for giving an item slightly more protection.

Are those actually free? They recoup the cost when you post it?

Yes, USPS offers a range of free Priority Mail and Priority Mail Express boxes and envelopes. You only pay postage when using them; sometimes flat rate (as in the box being discussed here), and other times by some combination of distance and dimensions/weight.

Flat rate is particularly interesting because the single rate applies, as implied, regardless of weight or distance. I sell a product that is 3 lb and fits into the aforementioned padded flat rate envelope. This means that I can ship it to the farthest reaches of Alaska or Guam for the same $8.45 (USPS commercial rate) as to any other US address.

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

#240

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 9:10 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #234

tempestn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I have occasionally thought of writing code to allow this (sort of a 'burst' feature for occasional exceptions) but the 80 char limit is not a real problem in practice. In fact it functions as a classic creative constraint.

> In fact it functions as a classic creative constraint.

If I might play devil's advocate a bit—aren't submitters not supposed to be creative in titles?

"Unless it's misleading or clickbait", yes, but I don't think there's a correlation between click-bait and length. I feel like a lot of titles get edited because of the character limit.