Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#1

Post by jgrahamc » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 10:44 AM UTC

Re: Apple's amusingly round reuse figures

#2

Post by toisanji » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:43 AM UTC

Why is this at the top of hn?

#3

Post by tim333 » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:43 AM UTC

Journalism I guess. Apple recovered 2,204 lbs sounds better than about a tonne.

#4

Post by jakozaur » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

Well, most of the world uses metric system and this dashboard is more about providing magnitude of recycling to public than an accountant statement.

#5

Post by wrong_variable » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

how is this a controversy ?

#6

Post by jgrahamc » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

wrong_variable wrote: post #5

how is this a controversy ?

Who said it was? More like an amusing easter egg.

#7

Post by jgrahamc » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:46 AM UTC

toisanji wrote: post #2

Why is this at the top of hn?

Because people voted it up and found it amusing?

#8

Post by kfir » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:46 AM UTC

Of course these are not exact numbers, did Apple ever say they are?! The point of this blog post eludes me.

#9

Post by jeeyoungk » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:51 AM UTC

kfir wrote: post #8

Of course these are not exact numbers, did Apple ever say they are?! The point of this blog post eludes me.

What do you mean they are not exact numbers? 2204 does seem to imply 4 significant digits.

#10

Post by robin_reala » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 11:52 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #3

Journalism I guess. Apple recovered 2,204 lbs sounds better than about a tonne.

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.