3 ms·

No, it doesn't imply that at all. How do you draw that inference?

by imgabe 10y ago

mindslight 10y ago
You implied that the reason one cannot hang drywall with machine bolts is specifically because they're bolts. If being called bolts vs screws were such a reliable indicator of functionality, then one would expect sheet metal screws to be much better at hanging drywall than say flat head machine bolts. BTW I personally call them machine screws. To me, the difference has more to do with what kind of drive they take, whether they're self-tapping, how big they are, or really just what kind of mood one is in. I'm well aware of many types of threaded fasteners, which is what makes trying for a general formal distinction between bolts and screws seem ridiculous. To me, it seems like more a matter of personal taste and dialect, bureaucrats attempting to force their prescriptions onto the world notwithstanding. Any one definition can capture most of the distinction, but leaves a remainder that's outright wrong. The CBP definition seems intuitively decent until you realize that the same item will be a screw or a bolt depending on the intent of the user. That's exactly the kind of ambiguity that keeps lawyers entrenched and erodes the rule of law. If a welded nut breaks free, does its screw become a bolt? When a nut gets tight enough to not spin on its own, does a bolt change into a screw?
- imgabe 10y ago
  Sheet metal screws would be better than bolts at hanging drywall. They still wouldn't be good at it because that's not what they're for, but they at least have a pointed tip that can dig into the drywall and penetrate it compared to a bolt with a flat tip that is going nowhere without a pre-drilled hole. Personal taste and dialect are all well and good, but when Screwco sues the US government to say they shouldn't have to pay the screw tariff, because they're actually importing bolts not screws, the government lawyer can't stand in court and say "Well, your honor, we think it's our personal taste to call these things screws and those things bolts because that's just what we think and it's common sense, everyone knows it." The government has a much stronger argument if they can say "See we published this document which specifically defines what we consider a screw and what we consider a bolt and as you can see this object has the physical characteristics of what we call a screw, so Mr. Screwco does in fact have to pay the screw tariff." Personal taste is not generally a legally defensible position, which is what I'm assuming the purpose of this document is, not a philosophical treatise on the existential nature of screws vs. bolts.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Actually I just walked over to my drawers and the first sheet metal screws I found would be decent drywall screws (flat heads and everything), except for the presumed increased cost. For machine bolts, I was picturing long 4-40 ones, hammered into the stud to get started. This seems like it would work as well, just even less efficient cost wise for a longer body to compensate for the shallower thread. But anyway back to the argument There apparently was this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341278 . But the items described sound like canonical bolts! Apparently the company turning their head when installing them legally changes that. So now we've got a legal definition that is abruptly different from how most anybody actually skilled in the art would classify them if actually forced to choose exclusively between the terms "screw" and "bolt". My point is that perhaps if terms are so close to be generally interchangeable in common usage, then perhaps the legal system shouldn't be trying to differentiate between them at all! It's a code smell of being at the limit of understanding. The government should only be creating general rules that are straightforwardly interpretable by the average person, not attempting to catalog and dictate every minute domain aspect top-down.

No, it doesn't imply that at all. How do you draw that inference?

by imgabe 10y ago

No, it doesn't imply that at all. How do you draw that inference?

You implied that the reason one cannot hang drywall with machine bolts is specifically because they're bolts. If being called bolts vs screws were such a reliable indicator of functionality, then one would expect sheet metal screws to be much better at hanging drywall than say flat head machine bolts. BTW I personally call them machine screws. To me, the difference has more to do with what kind of drive they take, whether they're self-tapping, how big they are, or really just what kind of mood one is in. I'm well aware of many types of threaded fasteners, which is what makes trying for a general formal distinction between bolts and screws seem ridiculous. To me, it seems like more a matter of personal taste and dialect, bureaucrats attempting to force their prescriptions onto the world notwithstanding. Any one definition can capture most of the distinction, but leaves a remainder that's outright wrong. The CBP definition seems intuitively decent until you realize that the same item will be a screw or a bolt depending on the intent of the user. That's exactly the kind of ambiguity that keeps lawyers entrenched and erodes the rule of law. If a welded nut breaks free, does its screw become a bolt? When a nut gets tight enough to not spin on its own, does a bolt change into a screw?

imgabe 10y ago
Sheet metal screws would be better than bolts at hanging drywall. They still wouldn't be good at it because that's not what they're for, but they at least have a pointed tip that can dig into the drywall and penetrate it compared to a bolt with a flat tip that is going nowhere without a pre-drilled hole. Personal taste and dialect are all well and good, but when Screwco sues the US government to say they shouldn't have to pay the screw tariff, because they're actually importing bolts not screws, the government lawyer can't stand in court and say "Well, your honor, we think it's our personal taste to call these things screws and those things bolts because that's just what we think and it's common sense, everyone knows it." The government has a much stronger argument if they can say "See we published this document which specifically defines what we consider a screw and what we consider a bolt and as you can see this object has the physical characteristics of what we call a screw, so Mr. Screwco does in fact have to pay the screw tariff." Personal taste is not generally a legally defensible position, which is what I'm assuming the purpose of this document is, not a philosophical treatise on the existential nature of screws vs. bolts.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Actually I just walked over to my drawers and the first sheet metal screws I found would be decent drywall screws (flat heads and everything), except for the presumed increased cost. For machine bolts, I was picturing long 4-40 ones, hammered into the stud to get started. This seems like it would work as well, just even less efficient cost wise for a longer body to compensate for the shallower thread. But anyway back to the argument There apparently was this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12341278 . But the items described sound like canonical bolts! Apparently the company turning their head when installing them legally changes that. So now we've got a legal definition that is abruptly different from how most anybody actually skilled in the art would classify them if actually forced to choose exclusively between the terms "screw" and "bolt". My point is that perhaps if terms are so close to be generally interchangeable in common usage, then perhaps the legal system shouldn't be trying to differentiate between them at all! It's a code smell of being at the limit of understanding. The government should only be creating general rules that are straightforwardly interpretable by the average person, not attempting to catalog and dictate every minute domain aspect top-down.