8 ms·
Apple's amusingly round reuse figures
- toisanji 11y agoWhy is this at the top of hn?
- jgrahamc 11y agoBecause people voted it up and found it amusing?
- jrockway 11y agoBut oh noes, with the most critical reading possible it could conceivably portray something negative about Apple! I'm amused that the vast majority of the comments here are mad at you for finding something mildly interesting and writing an article about it. HN is a weird place at times.
- kzrdude 11y agoBecause it's a dumb mistake, easy point out if you're technically minded. Being easy to understand gives it wide reach.
- tim333 11y agoJournalism I guess. Apple recovered 2,204 lbs sounds better than about a tonne.
- robin_reala 11y agoDoes it? Mind you, I conceptualise weights in kilos then have to make an effort to translate to pounds so maybe that sounds worse automatically.
- DonHopkins 11y agoSince it's gold, they should have given the number of troy tonnes.
- Buge 11y agoThey could simply round it to 2000 or 2200.
- jakozaur 11y agoWell, most of the world uses metric system and this dashboard is more about providing magnitude of recycling to public than an accountant statement.
- wrong_variable 11y agohow is this a controversy ?
- jgrahamc 11y agoWho said it was? More like an amusing easter egg.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kfir 11y agoOf course these are not exact numbers, did Apple ever say they are?! The point of this blog post eludes me.
- jeeyoungk 11y agoWhat do you mean they are not exact numbers? 2204 does seem to imply 4 significant digits.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bestnameever 11y agoThe 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.
- kfir 11y agoand my point was that those rounded numbers (in another unit) were just that rounded numbers, I didn't see anything amusing about it.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoNice catch, I didn't notice that at all when I saw their numbers originally, though the fact that the Tin and Silver numbers are a multiple of the Gold numbers should be a big tip off. One thing I'd like to know more about is how environmentally sensitive this processing actually is. My guess is that this takes place somewhere where they do a lot of other extraction from electronics components as well, probably China, and those processes are not necessarily too environmentally friendly. Extracting Gold, Tin, Copper, Silver, etc. often involves the use of strong acids, and the use of many other potentially hazardous chemicals. If care is taken it can be a relatively clean process, but if care is not taken it's pretty easy to damage the environment by just dumping the waste byproducts. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu
- fredwu 11y agoIn metric countries (like Australia) Apple does publish the numbers in kg: https://www.apple.com/au/environment/resources/ https://www.apple.com/au/environment/resources/ :)
- Symbiote 11y agoBut they've clearly been converted to pounds, then back to kilograms. Lead 19,994 Tin 1,999 Silver 2,999 Gold 1,000
- soneil 11y agoInteresting. For the UK they just say 1 tonne, 2 tonnes, etc - https://www.apple.com/uk/environment/resources/ 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.
- maaaats 11y agoWhich is kinda interesting in itself.
- Symbiote 11y agoEvidently so. This is the highest-rated comment I've ever written here.
- jsingleton 11y agoMegagrams would sound cooler though :)
- plorg 11y agoClearly this is evidence that their environmental report was created in their Irish subsidiary (of Double Irish fame), propagated to the U.S., and then modified for the rest of the world (here, Australia).
- deleted 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TillE 11y agoSomebody clearly never learned about significant figures. This happens all the time even among people who really should know better, giving false precision to imprecise measurements.
- kccqzy 11y agoIt's probably an educational issue as well. In the place where I came from, the people who ended up writing promotional copy were mostly humanities students in high school and university, but significant figures is considered an "intermediate" science topic not taught to humanities students.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chambo622 11y agoIn the US, significant figures are included in standard high school science courses. That doesn't mean they aren't forgotten though.
- nraynaud 11y agoIn France, in science we had to answer with the same number of digit after the decimal point as given in the exercise. It didn't feel right to me when that was crunched through logs and sine, but I got nowhere when I brought it up to the teacher. And even now the whole premise is flawed to me, because it's about significant digits, not just the number of figures after the decimal point, if you compute a times ten you have to remove one digit after the decimal point.
- tacos 11y ago"911 Metallurgist, which helps mines and recyclers extract precious metals from ore and, apparently, phones, has exhaustively checked the iPhones and other mobile devices. Each iPhone 5, for instance, contains $1.58 of gold, $.36 of silver, $.05 of platinum, and $.12 of copper." I'd posit the missing 644 pounds (<1kg) is platinum.
- carlob 11y ago644 pounds >> 1 kg. Actually slightly less than 300 kg
- slyall 11y agoNo luck finding the 644 missing pounds but I do note that the PDF version of the document (I assume the original) reports the steel figure as 23,101,000 instead of 28,101,000 . That however seems to be a typo that was fixed later. I'm guesses the missing 644 pounds is platinum. Several articles on Liam talk about the metal but it is not included in the list, presumably for space reasons. http://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2016.pdf http://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_...
- davideous 11y agoThis 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest
- tehwalrus 11y agoQI did this as a question, asking who was the first person to "put two feet on the top of Mt Everest".
- skarap 11y ago> 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.
- specialist 11y agoI have Creationists in my family. I don't poke the bear. But I've always wanted to ask how the Earth is perpetually 6,000 years old. Another question, if the assorted Creationists can't agree on the true age, then why do they get huffy about science's varying estimates? Oh well.
- twic 11y agoI understood that (some) creationists thought that the world was created in 4004 BC [1]. Which would make it 6020 years old now. That's close enough to 6000 years to just say that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
- arcticfox 11y agoI think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000 years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then 7,000 after that... Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...
- IIAOPSW 11y agoI thought the patent on round numbers got thrown out?
- madeofpalk 11y agoI find it very amusing that Apple is boasting about reducing the size of packaging, but they're still shipping accessories from their online store out in boxes about 15 times larger than required. http://i.imgur.com/sMyvO6o.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sMyvO6o.jpg I've noticed this not only with their packaging for third party accessories, but also for first party ones like the new Magic Mouse 2
- gcr 11y agoOn the other hand, this way they get to make fewer kinds of boxes, which means keeping less empty packages around the factory. They're depending on you to recycle that box. :-)
- qzervaas 11y agoI would assume this is to create greater logistical efficiencies in ways we don't see. Side note, I'd be quite interested to see the details of their contracts with courier companies (e.g. TNT deliver all of their new products here in Australia, although AusPost send/receive product replacements)
- madeofpalk 11y agoYeah, I always assumed it was to make other efficiencies elsewhere, but it's difficult to appreciate that when you get an order shipped in two massive boxes and an envelope when it would easily ship in one http://imgur.com/a/Yv9wD http://imgur.com/a/Yv9wD > I'd be quite interested to see the details of their contracts with courier companies This is always something that has interested me. Most of the time I get my orders from TNT, but sometimes they'll also come from Startrack. I once had a single order spread over both TNT and Startrack, and a friend ordered iPhone at the same time as me (during launch) and his came via Startrack and mine came via TNT. For what it's worth, Apple uses TNT to ship stuff internally to its retail stores.
- noobie 11y agoThey 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)
- tacos 11y agoWinner! Plus style points for providing code.
- iolothebard 11y ago342343
- noobie 11y agoI am the same person.
- iolothebard 11y ago23433234
- noobie 11y agoThere's a difference between pointing out the existence of a similar comment on the post and stating that I have stolen the comment. Assumptions can make fools of us all. How do you suggest that I make it clear? Keybase doesn't allow for G+ verification.
- iolothebard 11y ago1241241
- 11y ago
- denim_chicken 11y agoWho the hell cares?
- sillysaurus3 11y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive dismissals. (Substantive dismissals would be more valuable.)
- tathagatadg 11y agoI have a off topic question. How have you reused your old phone? I've seen some typical lists on the web - but nothing impressive given how powerful these small computers are.
- milankragujevic 11y agoI use it as a surveillance camera with a free Android app that streams the picture from the camera as an MJPEG using a built in HTTP server. It's pretty nice, I forwarded the ports on my modem and now I can see what's happening in my home from anywhere in the world :)
- camhenlin 11y agoI do the same with an old iPhone running AirBeam. Very handy and much easier to deal with than some poorly secured IoT camera or DVR with broken security
- analog31 11y agoLots of examples abound, of numbers that can be explained by unit conversion. 31.8 mm bicycle handlebar = 1-1/4 inches 68 degrees F (Jimmy Carter recommendation during energy crisis) = 20 C It's also interesting that the US units of measure are defined in terms of metric. For instance there's no standard inch. The inch is defined as 25.4 mm.
- mib32 11y agoThe russian version have it in tonnes, which is funny looking: Золото 1 https://www.apple.com/ru/environment/resources/ https://www.apple.com/ru/environment/resources/
- rdiddly 11y agoThey forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though, when you realize how much usable material they're recovering on the cheap. They're basically just doing the obvious, efficient and profitable thing. It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is, though. As metal prices go up, it will become even more profitable, and they'll be glad they already have the infrastructure in place.
- xoa 11y ago>They forgot to count the 2204# (1000kg) of self-congratulatory PR value extracted. Kind of ruins their bragging rights though No it doesn't. At all. Doing the right thing should, at the least, be worth positive social recognition ("public relations") at any level, from the largest corporations right down to individuals who work to keep their local neighborhood clean. Ideally, doing the "right thing" should also be profitable so that the Free Market can efficiently optimize towards it. That's part of the point of enforcing the price inclusion of externalities. There is nothing negative about doing something good simply because it's efficient and profitable. I very much dislike the self-flagellating attitude that somehow comes to the conclusion that in order to be worthy of praise doing good must be ultimately rare, unpleasant and costly. Sometimes that is the case, and extra praise and recognition is part of the feedback loop to try to make it more common, but in general society should work to make barriers to positive change as low as possible. Even if something like this is efficient and profitable once it's up and running there is still significant capital expenditure (both material and human) involved in setting it up in the first place. As always, that capital could be invested elsewhere, in areas that might be equally or more profitable and involve less risk and variability as well. Merely looking outcomes with risk-weighting and considering opportunity costs is always a mistake. You wrote: >It has taken markets a long time to catch up with how obvious it is Sometimes you may know better then the entirety of the market (business opportunity!), but sometimes you should consider that perhaps the markets recognize something that you don't. Maybe the reason this hasn't been more common is that it only looks "obvious" on the surface and taking into account life time costs, capital requirements and so forth most places have found that it has not been worth it. So when companies do forge ahead it is still worthy of recognition, particularly to the extent that it may encourage more to follow and ultimately make it more effective for everyone.
- function_seven 11y agoMy rant related to this: How It's Made[1] often has lines like, "The worker places the assembly in a oven that heats the metal to 1,292 degrees Fahrenheit". Which is an oddly-specfic temperature before you realize they just converted it from 700°C. Since it's highly doubtful the oven maintains precisely 700°C—and since it's not important to the viewer what the exact temperature is anyway—it annoys me that they don't just say "1,300°F" instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_It%27s_Made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_It%27s_Made
- colejohnson66 11y agoFun fact: the reason the human body temperature is said to be 98.6 °F is because of rounding between units. It originally was said to be 100 °F, which when converted to Celsius is 37.77 °C. Round that down to 37 °C and convert back and you get the oddly specific 98.6 °F (despite the fact the human body temperature can fluctuate quite a few degrees [Fahrenheit] throughout the day). I read this somewhere (credible), but I can't remember where, so sorry, but no source. It may be wrong, but the 98.6 °F is oddly specific and happens to line up perfectly with a round number when converted to °C.
- function_seven 11y agoThe fact that it converts perfectly to a round °C number is all the evidence I need. Thanks.
- legohead 11y agoA few comments.. When I measure my temperature I consistently get 98.6. However, my wife usually measures higher, often slightly above 99. Back to my wife. She is a native Russian, and when I asked her what they check for in Russia, she said 36.6 celcius, so that would help support your theory.
- 3JPLW 11y agoI don't think that's true. The Fahrenheit scale was originally defined to have 0° at the coldest measurable value at the lab bench (salt-water slurry), 32° at the freezing point of water, and 96° for human body temperature. Why use those numbers? It's really easy to make even gradations with with powers of two: just half the length each time. Pretty clever, but of course this has a problem in that there's no guarantee that the three points are co-linear. So it was eventually redefined to simply be defined based upon the freezing/boiling points of water — from 32-212, based upon approximate extrapolations of the scale at the time. They may have even aimed for an even 180 degree separation between the two points. And this leads to the exact 9/5ths conversion ratio (212-32 / 100) from Celsius. I think the 37°C -> 98.6°F is just a coincidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit#History
- King-Aaron 11y agoI don't know if anyone here has ever loaded an articulated semi-trailer with a loader, but something to note is that these figures (by the ton) are generally what a company like Apple would receive from the company doing the logistics here. Having figures by the whole ton means you can easily calculate how many trucks, containers and ships are needed for the process. Somewhere, there would be precise figures to the kilogram, but the logistics mob wouldn't usually pass that on as when you're dealing with this sort of level of material, it's easier to work in lots of a thousand kilos as opposed to individual kilograms.
- p1mrx 11y agoWhy bother converting from SI units in the first place? The public will never get comfortable with metric if publishers keep doing extra work to maintain the status quo. Even scientific educational programming (Nova, NASA TV, etc.) often uses US customary units; metrication is just ridiculously overdue at this point.