4 ms·
I wonder why the editor chose 3k-pound instead of 1.5 ton, or 3,000 lb. Never seen that before. Edit: OP changed the title, though the original title was with
by ErikVandeWater 5y ago
I wonder why the editor chose 3k-pound instead of 1.5 ton, or 3,000 lb. Never seen that before.
Edit: OP changed the title, though the original title was within the HN character limit.
- senthil_rajasek 5y agoMy guess is # of headline chars is a precious commodity and pounds are a more common unit if weight than tons?
- codetrotter 5y ago> pounds are a more common unit if weight than tons? Are they though?
- spfzero 5y agoThere's two thousand of them for every ton, so yes! :-)
- krick 5y agoThat's... pretty good. Cannot even object.
- senthil_rajasek 5y agoI did a quick google trends comparison and pound certainly has a lot more references than ton. Another way would be to use a text corpora...
- jordan801 5y agoPerhaps because there is a metric ton and a US ton.
- kevinmchugh 5y agoI dunno if USA today worries about that tbh
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- FridayoLeary 5y agoalthough given the context the units should be specified in stones...
- dvh 5y agoTo woo women: https://liturgicalcredo.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/robin-williams-dead-poets-society.jpg https://liturgicalcredo.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/robin-wi...
- mumblemumble 5y agoThe editor chose "3,000-pound." Whoever submitted this to HN abbreviated that to "3k-pound."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- SquibblesRedux 5y agoOP (me) copy-pasted the title exactly from the source page. Assuming the title at time of copy-paste was "3,000", I don't know how it became 3k. Is there an automatic search replace done by the HN submission process?
- dcminter 5y agoThere is - on one occasion a submission of mine had the capitalization automatically changed (incorrectly as it happens). I don't know if this is what happened to you, but it seems likely.