This 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
> 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.
Archaeologists deal with this by defining the "present" in "before present" as 1st Jan 1950. It helps that that's before widespread nuclear testing messed up the radioisotope levels.
They 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)
Their marketing decision is really odd. I guess the engineer that came up with kg numbers decided to round it in 1000kg, which is reasonable to me. Whoever got the number don't like kg, and converted to lb. Someone else adding the number up actually counts in 100lb, and thinks it's better just to round up.
And yeah, the last two zero is fishy, I first tried to do a simple round, and wondered where's the extra 600. It's always fun to write it in a different language:
I 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.
On 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. :-)
I 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)
Yeah, 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
> 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.
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.
As an American, I feel it's a little bit condescending for them to assume we can't consume the numbers in metric units. I also kind of wonder how much gold they actually recovered. Marketing logic says they rounded up, but what if they only recovered, say, ten bushels worth, do they still round up to a tonne?
Somebody 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.
It'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.
In 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.
Nice 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.
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.
Fun 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.
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.
A 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.
I think the same thing with length units. They're always saying, "The operator cuts the widget into four tenths of an inch increments" and I get unreasonably mad at the TV, shouting, "Ya mean a centimeter?!" If they were really using the imperial system, it would be 3/8", not 0.4.
But for temperature, I just can't relate to °C. I've been too indoctrinated in °F so long. But with higher values, like 700, it's not hard to double it in my head and get a reasonable approximation. So yeah, just give it to me in whatever unit the factory is actually using. Especially if there's a visible control panel in the shot.
Readit News
> 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
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
Python code:
And yeah, the last two zero is fishy, I first tried to do a simple round, and wondered where's the extra 600. It's always fun to write it in a different language:
What language is that?
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
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)
> 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.
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.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
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
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
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.
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
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.
If I lived there, it would annoy me more that they don't say 700°C in the USA...
But for temperature, I just can't relate to °C. I've been too indoctrinated in °F so long. But with higher values, like 700, it's not hard to double it in my head and get a reasonable approximation. So yeah, just give it to me in whatever unit the factory is actually using. Especially if there's a visible control panel in the shot.