Hacker News Reader

Comment by HillRat | Hacker News Reader

Evidently at least one lawsuit prompted the drafting of this semi-august publication. Good government means, in part, consistent and reliable application of rules -- even if it's as minute as the distinction between bolts and screws!

This, in my mind, is a very particular example of the general case of good government often being inefficient governance. We are protected against tyranny, in an infinitesimal and indeed ridiculous way, by colorless bureaucrats dedicated to the proposition that every bolt shall be labeled a bolt, and each screw a screw, regardless of the power and wealth of those who might carry them through customs and seek to see them mislabeled. Godspeed, writers of CBP Informed Compliance Publication minutiae, godspeed.

View on HN

Consistent and reliable application of rules would preclude creating needlessly complex differentiations between two terms that basically refer to the same thing.

The modern inability of an individual to independently and easily interpret the law is violation of equal protection.

(IMHO the items described downthread by DannyBee sound like the canonical thing most people picture when they hear "bolt")

They don't "basically refer to the same thing". They are different items that serve different purposes. They may appear similar from a distance, but go try to hang drywall with some machine bolts, then come back and tell me that they're "basically the same thing".

Your reasoning implies that one can hang drywall with sheet metal screws, simply by virtue of them being called screws.

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?

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.

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 . 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.

Perhaps there wasn't a lawsuit, but rather this is an artefact of the organization the created it, in Northcote Parkinson style. That is to say, perhaps Sally, a middle manager in the NAFTA Bureau, Cyclicals Division, Building Materials Department, Fasteners Group, has five reports and each of them plays a vital role.

Godspeed, Sally.

There was a lawsuit:

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses the “Specification for Identification of Bolts and Screws,” ANSI - ASME B18.2.1 1981 (the “Specification”) to distinguish bolts from screws.1 In Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 900, 118 F.Supp. 2d 1238 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2000), the Court of International Trade (CIT) sanctioned the use of the Specification for this purpose, stating that it provides a well-recognized, comprehensive basis for the common and commercial meaning of bolt and screw as understood by the fastener industry in the United States. See Id., at 906 and 913, 118 F.Supp. 2d at 1243 and 1249. The standard is full of industry jargon, so to make it easier to use, we have combined it here with illustrations and glossary terms from Fastener Standards 6th Edition, Industrial Fasteners Institute, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, 1988."

Yes, and in case anyone wanted to question whether this really came up there, i'll give the relevant paragraphs:

"The products at issue in this case consist of a variety of metal fasteners that Rocknel imported from Japan in 1997. The fasteners, which are fabricated from metal alloys, have rod-shaped bodies and hexagonally shaped heads. Their bodies are fully or partially threaded. Rocknel has admitted that the fasteners were designed to be installed in holes of assembled parts and that the fasteners were designed to be tightened or released by turning their heads.

...

The Customs Service liquidated the fasteners under subheading 7318.15.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Subsequently, Rocknel filed a protest, claiming that the fasteners should have been classified under HTSUS subheading 7318.15.20."

(15.80 is screws, 15.20 is bolts)

...

"The court concluded that the tariff schedule required that the terms “bolt” and “screw” be given mutually exclusive definitions.

...

Because Customs had looked to the ANSI Specification as the source of the definitions of “bolt” and “screw” for tariff classification purposes, and because Rocknel had admitted that under the ANSI Specification the fasteners at issue in this case would be classified as screws and not bolts, the court granted summary judgment to Customs upholding the agency's classification of the fasteners."

I secretly thought the diagrams were kind of cool. I'm saddened to learn they were taken from elsewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com