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

261–270 of 316 posts

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

#261

Post by SilasX »

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.

I think the broader (meta-?)point of Chesterton's fence is that our beliefs about the reason for the fence can still be wrong because we lost the tacit knowledge that produced and kept the fence there.

So even if the rule shows up in some "city aesthetic code" where they wrote down "yep more than two is ugly", it may very well be satisfying some other desideratum that no one wrote down.

That's not to say this rule really does have other reasons, but you can't stop at "yup that's what our records show". And indeed, some of them mentioned possible safety issues that arise with greater depths.

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

#262

Post by SilasX »

saas_sam wrote: post #86
revel wrote: post #71

This article is ridiculous. "It's so easy but nobody expected it to happen!" Most of freight is run off spreadsheets and over the phone or by email. Flexport is built around digitization and optimization. Half of the appeal of their product is that it gives customers improved visibility! It's therefore not surprising that a local city mayor didn't realize he had the power to unclog the US traffic jam. Referring to hi…

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.

The first section of the blog post goes to great lengths to say "oh this is actually something he figured out after extensive research, and he's making his advice seem more credible by framing it as 'aw shucks I just noticed this on a quick boat trip where I heard [what is actually his own understanding] from Legit Experts It's Okay To Trust' and thus reduce popular resistance to considering it".

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

#263

Post by tuatoru »

mcguire wrote: post #238
YokoZar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What would the consequences of an earthquake be?

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

#264

Post by SilasX »

mzs wrote: post #110
saas_sam wrote: post #86

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.

Why is everyone "suspecting" this? The blog post starts by laying out that that was exactly what he did (knew beforehand and put it into a plausible but made-up narrative).

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29032229

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

#266

Post by whateveracct »

adolph wrote: post #246
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.

> realities as unfortunate errors ripe for optimization Yes, it is a deeply optimistic and progressive worldview. It's a real shame people don't respect the unimprovable world as it really is.

Never said that - I'm mostly commenting on how glib the commentary is. Not saying there isn't room for improvement or optimism.

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

#267

Post by xyzzyz »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #137
xyzzyz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way making a new container is cheaper than shipping back the old one.

Look at this graph of freight prices: https://cdn.jpmorganfunds.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/... It's not that it's cheaper to make new containers. It's that the opportunity cost of waiting for the ship to be loaded with empty containers is more expensive than immediately heading back to Shanghai with an empty ship so that you can make another very lucrative journey to LA. That's my limited understanding of the…

The goods waiting in Shanghai are not in freshly minted containers. If they were, shipping from LA to Shanghai would be much more expensive than your graph suggests, because otherwise it would have been cheaper to ship one from LA than buy new one in Shanghai, and so people would do that instead of buying new containers.

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

#268

Post by tuatoru »

ciphol wrote: post #139
conductr wrote: post #22

I followed this and from my understanding the changes while enacted quickly are still only temporary (rollback in 120 days). If that's the case, I'd like "them" to think about how this situation could have been avoided all together. I can't help but thinking about how all the Asian markets were having similar log jams due to economies reopening and the Suez issue months ago. Surely it was known (or, could have been k…

What exactly is the problem with 8-9 high, or 20 high, or whatever the technical limit is? The land belongs to the port owners, why should anyone else be able to restrict how they stack containers?

There is also fire and earthquake risk.

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

#269

Post by tuatoru »

notwedtm wrote: post #11
sleibrock wrote: post #7

In Factorio design this is simply increasing the buffer size. If the truck-loadings-per-hour don't increase then it's not going to matter how large you make the buffer. Adding a secondary site for putting containers also seems like it's going to be a new challenge for the logistics company scheduling the rides (I have a friend who deals with train cargo scheduling). Truckers who are used to showing up at the port are…

You have idle trucks unable to increase the truck-loadings-per-hour because they can't complete a single job due to the lack of storage space for their empty containers. Providing that storage space will allow the trucks to complete their circuit.

The increased wait time also degrades capacity permanently. There was an essay by a truck driver posted here yesterday[1].

MMy understanding: many truck drivers are owner-operators, operating on extremely slim margins at the best of times (say 5 pickups per day).

With long waits and maybe one or two pickups per day, they go out of business.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29022124

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

#270

Post by vanattab »

kelnos wrote: post #260
mig39 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prince Rupert is also physically closer to Asia (saves 2-3 days of sailing time), and has very little other sea traffic. The rail line is also expanding, and has very little non-port traffic. The port itself is protected by geography, and is one of the deepest natural harbours in the world. It's a neat place! Well, except for being one of the rainiest cities in Canada. Edit: If you're interested in this kind of thing…

To me, you're raising the question of: why are ports in locations like Long Beach and LA (and SF/Oakland)? They seem like terrible locations for ports. There's a lot of coastline on the western US. Why pick places where land is astronomically expensive, and transportation options aren't great? One reason I can think of is availability of labor, but how many people does it take to run a good-sized port? Not saying we…

Maybe SF and LA are there because the area is a good port? Cities have been built near navigatable waterways since time immoral.
Post reply on HN