5 ms·

I wonder why it’s not possible to route around weather. We have slowed shipping (Slow Steaming) because no one was willing to pay the extra fuel cost for the fa

I wonder why it’s not possible to route around weather. We have slowed shipping (Slow Steaming) because no one was willing to pay the extra fuel cost for the faster transits. We’re very good at nowcasting and forecasting weather globally and extremely good at it near coasts (COAMPS). Why not avoid these systems rather than plow through? Or is global marine trade like the wildebeest migrations in the Serengeti?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
The article talks about this directly. >>> More recently, the steep rise in demand for goods during the Covid era has meant that ships that once travelled at partial capacity now set off fully loaded and crews are pressured to adhere to strict timetables, even if doing so requires ignoring problems on board or sailing through storms instead of around them
- WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
  Bottom line, cost, someone has done the math and has determined that it's cheaper to power thru than to try to re-route. Insurers could change this by refusing to insure under certain conditions but they've also concluded that it makes better financial sense to let the situation continue as it is now. I've come to the conclusion that if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money. Not always, but it's up there.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    It could also be that the person in charge or scheduling gets a bonus for on time delivery and dinged for late deliveries but isn't punished for boats sinking. Misaligned incentives exist all around us.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Aligned incentives also exists all around us. I assume it is the case that lost containers are in fact acceptable.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Well, insurers tend to go off hard data (they rarely go looking for trouble), and it takes a decent number of sunk ships to start being a statistically significant shift. Until then, it’s the same price.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    > the primary culprit is money. The primary reason is efficiency. Sometimes taking risks is more efficient. Efficiency may translate into money, but you are describing something as a vice, when it's not..
    - tsol 4y ago
      No one takes risks only for the sake of efficiency. They do so because taking risks to be efficient (can) make them more money. Efficiency for the sake of $$$
      - thereisnospork 4y ago
        That is the point of money, to measure and guage efficiency. To answer the question of 'Is the risk of losing a ship and all hands worth it?' one merely need check the actuarial tables.
        hulitu 4y ago
        The only efficiency that money measure is the efficiency to get rich.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It also means goods getting to people who need or want them, when they want them, and at a lower price. Yes this is money, but money buys food, and fulfills many human needs. There are always some needs that can't be addressed by money, but it sure goes a long way.
  - didericis 4y ago
    > if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money I agree, but I’d get more specific; the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value. When used appropriately, money is a fantastic way to signal relative need and allocate resources in a decentralized way, and is one of the most powerful and sophisticated technologies we have. When money is artificially easy to come by and leveraging is artificially low risk, that decreases price signal quality and leads to increasing levels of insanity.
    - danuker 4y ago
      I agree! How do you allocate your portfolio?
      - didericis 4y ago
        Haha, I don’t practice what I preach that well/don’t try to look for real value that actively. Majority of what I invest is in a couple different Vanguard index funds. I don’t have the time to do the proper research to pick well, so I just kind of hope the averages in the Vanguard picks work out favorably over time. I took a chance on crypto in 2019 that worked well, but that wasn’t a huge bet. I’m currently spinning up my own business, which I consider my main pie in the sky active investment. Depending on how that goes I might shift to more active investing later in life (am 30, single currently, and feel like the best path for active investment and hunting for real value right now is something I steer myself).
    - drekipus 4y ago
      > the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value. I really wish this was more widely known. People really love to think "I know exactly what would solve every problem" while over abstracting and making bad assumptions about value all the time
  - thisNeeds2BeSad 4y ago
    Et tu, Brute? spoke Crypto.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

The article talks about this directly. >>> More recently, the steep rise in demand for goods during the Covid era has meant that ships that once travelled at partial capacity now set off fully loaded and crews are pressured to adhere to strict timetables, even if doing so requires ignoring problems on board or sailing through storms instead of around them

WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
Bottom line, cost, someone has done the math and has determined that it's cheaper to power thru than to try to re-route. Insurers could change this by refusing to insure under certain conditions but they've also concluded that it makes better financial sense to let the situation continue as it is now. I've come to the conclusion that if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money. Not always, but it's up there.
- com2kid 4y ago
  It could also be that the person in charge or scheduling gets a bonus for on time delivery and dinged for late deliveries but isn't punished for boats sinking. Misaligned incentives exist all around us.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Aligned incentives also exists all around us. I assume it is the case that lost containers are in fact acceptable.
- lazide 4y ago
  Well, insurers tend to go off hard data (they rarely go looking for trouble), and it takes a decent number of sunk ships to start being a statistically significant shift. Until then, it’s the same price.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  > the primary culprit is money. The primary reason is efficiency. Sometimes taking risks is more efficient. Efficiency may translate into money, but you are describing something as a vice, when it's not..
  - tsol 4y ago
    No one takes risks only for the sake of efficiency. They do so because taking risks to be efficient (can) make them more money. Efficiency for the sake of $$$
    - thereisnospork 4y ago
      That is the point of money, to measure and guage efficiency. To answer the question of 'Is the risk of losing a ship and all hands worth it?' one merely need check the actuarial tables.
      - hulitu 4y ago
        The only efficiency that money measure is the efficiency to get rich.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It also means goods getting to people who need or want them, when they want them, and at a lower price. Yes this is money, but money buys food, and fulfills many human needs. There are always some needs that can't be addressed by money, but it sure goes a long way.
- didericis 4y ago
  > if something that seems crazy continues to happen then the primary culprit is money I agree, but I’d get more specific; the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value. When used appropriately, money is a fantastic way to signal relative need and allocate resources in a decentralized way, and is one of the most powerful and sophisticated technologies we have. When money is artificially easy to come by and leveraging is artificially low risk, that decreases price signal quality and leads to increasing levels of insanity.
  - danuker 4y ago
    I agree! How do you allocate your portfolio?
    - didericis 4y ago
      Haha, I don’t practice what I preach that well/don’t try to look for real value that actively. Majority of what I invest is in a couple different Vanguard index funds. I don’t have the time to do the proper research to pick well, so I just kind of hope the averages in the Vanguard picks work out favorably over time. I took a chance on crypto in 2019 that worked well, but that wasn’t a huge bet. I’m currently spinning up my own business, which I consider my main pie in the sky active investment. Depending on how that goes I might shift to more active investing later in life (am 30, single currently, and feel like the best path for active investment and hunting for real value right now is something I steer myself).
  - drekipus 4y ago
    > the primary culprit is usually over abstraction and misallocation due to bad assumptions about value. I really wish this was more widely known. People really love to think "I know exactly what would solve every problem" while over abstracting and making bad assumptions about value all the time
- thisNeeds2BeSad 4y ago
  Et tu, Brute? spoke Crypto.