Hacker News Reader

> with storage costs being exponentially higher in the US than in China

Can we please stop using „exponential“ like this? Maybe you meant orders of magnitude?

Used to bother me too, as a mathematician. Then I learned about linguistics. If enough people use words a certain way, then it's vernacular. Sadly, I think this usage is long accepted.

This is the same annoyance when you see somebody say:

It cost 10X less if we use 'Y' over 'Z'.

My brain always short circuits and says "I think they mean it costs 1/10th...."

"There was a 5 times decease in crime..." uggh, just give me the damn numbers. Is crime now at 1/20th the previous level???

I know they are telling us it's less, and I don't even care about the story; but i waste brain power trying to grok what they really mean.

I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but I think this usage is defensible. 10 is ten times more than 1. So 1 is arguably ten times less than 10.

Certainly there are more important things to fret about, like: "Tim went to the store with he and I.' Arrgghh!!!

Even "ten times more" isn't exactly clear in my opinion. 100% more is two times. 900% more is ten times. Ten times more is... eleven times?

I try to say "{x} is ten times {y}", which is, as far as I can tell is unambiguous. (Mostly, what's ten times colder?)

"x more than y" means "y + x" - a sum. "x% more than y" means "y + x% = y + y×(x÷100)" and "x% less than y" means "y - x% = y - y×(x÷100)".

To me, "x times more than y" means the same as "x times as much as y" only "y×x" and "x times less than y" means "y÷x". I guess this might seem ambiguous if you bracket the expression like "x times (more than) y", but in practice it's bracketed like "x (times more than) y".

(Native American English speaker)

11 is 10 times more than 1. 10 is 10 times as large as 1.

You'd really say 32 is 3 times more than 8?

Well I'd rather say it's 4 times the size of 8, but I certainly don't say that 6 is "75% more than 8"

[edit]

I also wouldn't say that 6 is "75% less than 8" if your thought is that "more" just indicates a bigger value.

6 is 25% less than 8 - it's 75% of 8.

I agree; and similarly 10 is 25% more than 8 and 125% of 8.

My go-to example is "awful". The original meaning is literally to be full of awe. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a speaker today that adheres to that meaning over simply meaning "very bad", which is almost an antonym.

Languages change and are influenced by their use, so you need to pick your battles. If something can be unambiguously understood then you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and it's only a matter of time

I have only really noticed the incorrect use of the word “exponential” for the past couple years, here’s hoping it’s not too late to reverse course!

Are you OK with the use of 'decimated'?

Given that 900/8000 are out with COVID, that's within a 20% tolerance of being correct.

seconding InitialLastName, this is one of the few cases where decimated is used appropriately with its initial meaning

This begs the question whether it's also OK to use "beg the question" in this manner.

It used to bother me too, and some usage still bothers the hell out of me, but there’s a way "exponentially large" works fine.

An exponential change is a change on a log scale. Instead of current+d it’s exp[current+d]. So exponential change makes sense. “Exponentially higher” means on a log scale it’s higher enough to be worth commenting on. It’s mathematically correctly synonymous with an order(s) of magnitude change.

Of course, that gets you into the debate over what exponent or log base to use. Is 2x an order of magnitude increase? 1.1x? 10x? It’s all fuzzy.

And then there are people who just use it as “hella” and that still drives me nuts. “It increased by 10% but that matters so much to me that 10% is exponentially larger!” That kind of usage seems to be catching on too as “exponentially” further enters the lexicon of people who don’t remember what an exponent is. I’ll fight that one forever.

The "exponential" is possibly referring the `n` in scientific notation `×10ⁿ`. IE, it's referring to being larger on a logarithmic rather than linear scale.

I am on board (badum-psh!) with diffuse causality for massive and complex systems like "retail-level" (or consumer-level) import/export trade, but your point would be more persuasive with a trailhead of links demonstrating to what degree this is affecting the outcome. Because it's true that American consumers spent more during this past holiday season than ever before, with CNBC quoting the National Retail Federation (retail trade group) as saying a driver of increased buying was that people aren't spending on travel, entertainment, and services. [0] Also, unemployment has gone down significantly from those crazy levels from last spring. [1] It also appears the port itself said in late November that there was an increase of 22% in container traffic to the port. [2] However the LA Times makes the same claim that you are making, but without citing any source. Edit to add two things: Interesting to note the LA Times also implied that the federal government might be investigating some potential shenanigans around empty container availability. [3] Also, any idea where the tweet you posted is getting those numbers?

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/retail-trade-group-forecasts...

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[2] https://gcaptain.com/covid-restocking-surge-continues-at-por...

[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-11-22/shipping-c...

Didn’t you read the article? COVID is definitely part of the equation and listed as a cause under “Congestion cause”.

“Terminals are working with limited labor and split shifts,” it said, asserting that this is related to COVID. “This labor shortage affects all terminals’ TAT [turnaround time] for truckers, inter-terminal transfers and the number of daily appointments available for gate transactions and delays our vessel operations.”

I didn't assert that COVID wasn't part of the equation, and it's nicer for everybody if we don't assume somebody hasn't read an article (though I agree it's a natural thing to wonder sometimes).

I walked away from the article thinking exactly that it was a reduced work capacity thanks to COVID, it's said as such in the article. Perhaps I skimmed some of the more leading paragraphs, but my takaway was the cause was decreased capacity at the ports.

I did a tour once and its basically people sitting in a control room running robots remotely. One of the first places where they used self driving cars as early as the 90s. And its all run very efficiently, they plan up to the hour when ships arrive and leave.

How would that explain the increased amount of TEU volume in the "Port of Los Angeles Weekly Volumes" chart shown on the site?

It's answered (I believe) right below the chart: "Importantly, the data does not solely include TEUs arriving in a particular week. It also includes TEUs arriving in prior weeks that the port expects to handle in the stated week."

In other words, it includes the backlog that's building up. "Expects to handle" isn't the same as "can handle." That's going to go up until the backlog is cleared.

(There is data that could prove me right or wrong, but the article doesn't provide it.)

False. Getting a container in China is very difficult right now and around 2-3x the normal cost. Supply chain constraints are stretched way past just the local ports.

> which has disproportionally impacted both POCs and workers in heavy-labor industries

What does POC mean in this context? I come from software engineering and in my world it is an acronym for proof of concept, but it looks like it's about something entirely different here.

In this context I believe it's people of color.

In medical fields it refers to plan of care.

I think you’re right, but given the topic of the article, I had assumed “ports of call”.

> port workers in SoCal have been decimated by COVID

The general narrative seems to be that unless you're older and/or obese, Covid doesn't usually affect you much (yes there are outliers). I would imagine the port workers to be physically fit - is this a misconception?

COVID probably won't _kill_ you if you are young and fit -- but it can certainly leave you sick in bed for a week or so.

Not to mention what's called "long covid" - basically even if you are an athlete, you risk lung damage to an extent even a life of chain smoking can't achieve, and there have been reports of coronavirus passing the blood-brain barrier and damaging the central nerve system.

Coronavirus has many, many, MANY ways of affecting a person for decades to come, and we're learning more about it every day.

Edit: since I'm getting downvoted, I assume this comes from people who want sources, so here they are:

- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-lungs-scarring-smokers-lu...

- https://www.helmholtz.de/en/health/what-damage-is-potentiall...

It's not yet clear that covid can result in lung damage more severe than a life of chain smoking, this kind of long term research hasn't been done yet.

Not really sure if either can cause more severe lung damage then they do. The worst case end scenarios of both are your lungs being so damaged that it kills you. Hard to make it worse than that.

Though one manages it in a few weeks while the other takes decades.

There are multiple reports of extremely damaged post-COVID lungs already, see my edit. Of course, the amount of these cases is low - but even if it turns out to be one in a million cases, I'd never gamble on these odds.

Is the answer to ignore anecdotes until long term data has been done? Sometimes science doesn't have the needed solution quickly enough to minimize damage. Being overly cautious in times of uncertainty has always been a human risk minimalization technique, might as well wield it, in moderation of course.

No, but it's similarly unwise to over-index on them.

Can you restate your point in non programmer jargon? The downside is chronic health problems, the upside is minimal. Theres not much unwise about waiting for more info and staying cautious.

>It's not yet clear that covid can result in lung damage more severe than a life of chain smoking

that seems like a very low bar to set

I had it mildly (as in I didn't feel in mortal danger) early on, and it completely knocked me out for over a week. I'm a software developer and couldn't even have considered getting out of bed and working for the majority of that time, there's no way in hell someone who does actual labour for a living is going to manage it.

Why have I heard that it's possible to spread without any symptoms at all? Is that wrong?

Generally the rules are that if you have COVID you stay home to avoid transmitting it to other people (who may be more vulnerable or who may themselves transmit it)

Ah so its effectively like a flu wave but possibly more infectious, and with longer sick leave. Makes sense that this leads to labor shortages.

Like a flu... but with all the differences.

A bike is like a car. It has wheels and you ride it from point A to B.

> While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care.

> While the range of symptoms for the two viruses is similar, the fraction with severe disease appears to be different. For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation. These fractions of severe and critical infection would be higher than what is observed for influenza infection.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

And aside from that, a large problem with covid-19 is the DDoS on the health care system stemming from the severe infection rates, which can create large second order effects.

Almost 0.1% of the US population has died from COVID so far, coupled with changes in total capacity due to COVID restrictions and changes to how workplaces operate, it's a lot more impactful than a flu wave to business operations.

I feel you are being willfully ignorant, and I have to suggest you look into the severity of COVID and the statistics so far. It's been going on for over a year now, the information is out there.

Almost 0.1% of the US population has died with COVID.

Check excess mortality for 2020: ourworldindata.org doesn't have the figures for Dec yet, but we'll end up with something close to 440k additional deaths compared to the average 2015-19.

So 0.1% probably is the correct order of magnitude.

If anything, it’s an underestimate. Regular flu deaths are way down for 2020 (masks and social distancing work!), but are included at their normal rate in the baseline for excess mortality.

Same applies at smaller scale for other factors in baseline mortality, like traffic deaths and industrial accidents, that have also been suppressed by policy and behavior changes due to the pandemic.

I don't know about the rules in California, but in most places you're not supposed to go back to work for at least a week if you've tested positive regardless of your symptoms. This is to prevent further spread, of course.

It's quite likely that most of the workers in question aren't worse off than with a "normal" flu, but they're still going to be away from work for a while.

FYI: A so called "normal flu" is usually not a flu, just a bad cold. If you get the flu it's normally a lot worse than bad cold.

Agreed.

Someone defined the difference as "if you think you're going to die, and feel that dying might be better than staying sick - then you have the flu. Otherwise you have a cold.".

At some point you have pneumonia.

Was super sick once. Was informed that a child was pouring chocolate milk on my laptop. I couldn’t have cared less at that point.

I don't think these people can afford to take that week off. Most of these people are paid by the hour. If you aren't working, you aren't making money to pay bills and get groceries.

I am making some assumptions here, but I would venture to guess a lot of these people just fake it and grind through it just to stay employed.

Massive spike doesn't mean anything. Most importantly, how many are actually sick.

The solution are obvious, do not test people with asymptomatic/mild symptoms. A lot of people are forced to stay at home simply because positive test, even though they are not sick or already recovered from sick.

Sure, some may say they can still infect other but the chance a low and even if they infected other, doesn't mean that the other people become sick too.

The chance of someone positive for COVID infecting others is emphatically not low, compared to other diseases like influenza.

Sure, if it compared to other diseases like influenza it maybe higher but in general both are still low number and then you still have to multiply that probability of getting positive on test with probability of becoming actually stick, which is another low number.