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

Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

blog.jgc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#31

Post by motardo »

kfir wrote: post #20
bestnameever wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is saying the the numbers were rounded when based in another unit. for instance 136,036 lbs reported from apple is converted from the rounded 59,000 kg. The 59,000 kg comes off more as a rounded number than 136,036 lbs.

and my point was that those rounded numbers (in another unit) were just that rounded numbers, I didn't see anything amusing about it.

The correct conversion of 1 metric ton into pounds is 2000 pounds, not 2204 pounds. It's amusing because Apple did it wrong.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#32

Post by tehwalrus »

davideous wrote: post #26

This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: > Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

QI did this as a question, asking who was the first person to "put two feet on the top of Mt Everest".

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#33

Post by noobie »

They simply rounded the weights in pounds to the next hundred which resulted in the extra 644lbs.

Python code:

    import math
    def roundup(x):
	return int(math.ceil(x / 100.0)) * 100

    materials_in_kgs =  [12750000,6090000,5420000,2050000,1340000,86000,18000,20000,59000,2000,3000,1000]
    materials_in_lbs = [i*2.204 for i in materials_in_kgs]

    materials_in_lbs_rounded = [roundup(i) for i in materials_in_lbs]

    print sum(materials_in_lbs_rounded)

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#34

Post by tacos »

noobie wrote: post #33

They simply rounded the weights in pounds to the next hundred which resulted in the extra 644lbs. Python code: import math def roundup(x): return int(math.ceil(x / 100.0)) * 100 materials_in_kgs = [12750000,6090000,5420000,2050000,1340000,86000,18000,20000,59000,2000,3000,1000] materials_in_lbs = [i*2.204 for i in materials_in_kgs] materials_in_lbs_rounded = [roundup(i) for i in materials_in_lbs] print sum(materials_…

Winner! Plus style points for providing code.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#35

Post by jsingleton »

soneil wrote: post #24
Symbiote wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they've clearly been converted to pounds, then back to kilograms. Lead 19,994 Tin 1,999 Silver 2,999 Gold 1,000

Interesting. For the UK they just say 1 tonne, 2 tonnes, etc - https://www.apple.com/uk/environment/resources/ So everyone’s trying to play this as some conspiracy of fictional numbers. All we’ve actually found is that Apple do localize their site, and possibly some weaknesses in how they do so.

Megagrams would sound cooler though :)

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#37

Post by skarap »

davideous wrote: post #26

This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: > Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

> This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856:

Or the joke about the museum guide telling visitors the dinosaur skeleton is 100,000,005 years old, because when he started there 5 years ago, an expert told him it was 100 million years old.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#38

Post by paublyrne »

gordjw wrote: post #18
robin_reala wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? Mind you, I conceptualise weights in kilos then have to make an effort to translate to pounds so maybe that sounds worse automatically.

Probably just because of the larger number I'd say.

They should given the number in grammes.

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#40

Post by paublyrne »

motardo wrote: post #31
kfir wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and my point was that those rounded numbers (in another unit) were just that rounded numbers, I didn't see anything amusing about it.

The correct conversion of 1 metric ton into pounds is 2000 pounds, not 2204 pounds. It's amusing because Apple did it wrong.

No that's a us ton converted to pounds. A metric tonne to pounds is 1:2.204.
Post reply on HN