Giant Ship Is Moved To and Fro to Break Suction: Suez Update(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Giant Ship Is Moved To and Fro to Break Suction: Suez Update
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-28/progress-made-in-moving-ship-more-vessels-diverted-suez-update
258 comments
Impressively, https://istheshipstillstuck.com/ updated with a "Sort of?" which is accurate.
> It has cost us $56 billion
What if you add in the value of all the memes it has generated though? Definitely a net positive for the world overall.
What if you add in the value of all the memes it has generated though? Definitely a net positive for the world overall.
It never costed $56 billion. It's just $56 billion worth of goods held up for a few days. A bit like a bitcoin payment.
Some of those goods are cattle. Imagine being blocked in the middle of the desert on a steel ship for days.
It takes almost a day to transit the canal, so presumably they have some way of dealing with the heat.
How many cattle can fit in a TEU?
Cattle (and sheep, of which there are at least 130.000 stuck at the moment, see https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/stranded-suez-canal-ship...) aren't squeezed in containers but rather shipped on specialized ships (which in turn often are sometimes barely retrofitted other ships, such as car ferries, see https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/spanien-rinder-irrfahrt...).
Are we dealing with spherical cows here?
[deleted]
Not to mention the value of teaching a lesson about single points of failure
What lesson is that?
Would it have been cheaper to build and maintain two canals? And it's not the end of the world if ships have to go the long way.
Would it have been cheaper to build and maintain two canals? And it's not the end of the world if ships have to go the long way.
Interestingly, there's at least a possibility for a Nicaragua Canal as a redundancy for the Panama Canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal
Doubt there's any alternate paths for a Suez Canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal
Doubt there's any alternate paths for a Suez Canal.
Wow, in a list of astoundingly bad ideas, cutting a path for large container ships through a pristine freshwater lake will probably rank at the top.
I love pristine lakes too but we should look at the cost/benefit before deciding.
A pristine lake doesn’t have infinite value, right?
A pristine lake doesn’t have infinite value, right?
It depends on who's point of view we're evaluating it from. I haven't looked, but suppose there is an endangered species which call the lake home, perhaps that is the only place they inhabit. Putting them one oil spill away from existence.
So, what's the going rate for pristine lakes nowadays?
It’s actually really high since you’d be ruining the enjoyment of the lake for all future generations plus the fact that you can’t predict how much enjoyment they would get from it.
But if there were enough benefits it could still be worth it. Brining 50k people out of poverty for example? Reducing trucking pollution by a large amount.
But if there were enough benefits it could still be worth it. Brining 50k people out of poverty for example? Reducing trucking pollution by a large amount.
Best I can do is about tree fiddy.
you could cut across the egypt/israel border from the gulf of aqaba.
It would be something like ten times the length of Suez, and I think there are mountains in the middle, but it would be pretty cool! :)
It would be something like ten times the length of Suez, and I think there are mountains in the middle, but it would be pretty cool! :)
It's been proposed before! https://www.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-canal-393225
It would be less than 3x the length, not 10x. The mountains are a problem; it could go around but would still need to dig a lot. And it doesn't seem feasible politically right now, but it could be a really cool project.
(If it was built, then a side-canal to irrigate the Dead Sea would be a relatively cheap value-add.)
It would be less than 3x the length, not 10x. The mountains are a problem; it could go around but would still need to dig a lot. And it doesn't seem feasible politically right now, but it could be a really cool project.
(If it was built, then a side-canal to irrigate the Dead Sea would be a relatively cheap value-add.)
The Norwegians are already planning a tunnel for boats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stad_Ship_Tunnel
"In March 2021, the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications gave approval for preparations to begin, with the Norwegian Coastal Administration expecting construction to begin in 2022."
"In March 2021, the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications gave approval for preparations to begin, with the Norwegian Coastal Administration expecting construction to begin in 2022."
Norway, where else! They seem to have an entirely different relation to tunneling than the rest of humanity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drammen_Spiral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drammen_Spiral
And there are canal tunnels already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_tunnel
A large portion of the channel has been upgraded into two lanes in the last few years.
Well maybe....make the Suez Canal wider? Like, double the width, so if this happens again ships can pass?
Or would it just lead to ships being made that can accomodate the entire width of the super-wide canal? :P
Or would it just lead to ships being made that can accomodate the entire width of the super-wide canal? :P
Look at Panama Canal: its dimensions have defined container ships since...well...since it was built (see "Panamax"). When a new and improved set of locks was built, New Panamax ships (i.e. "juust large enough to fit the new maxima") were launched.
Well I suppose that has a very simple solution - make the canal wider so that even if a ship runs into a side others can pass, but leave the entry points on both ends the same width.
Maybe more like having a stockpile of essential parts may be beneficial if something like this or Corona happens.
If you're relying on intercontinental cargo ships then you probably already know you need to have a buffer, whether you actually have one or not.
Also, for some businesses it may just not make sense as the cost of stockpiling is more than the occasional loss of productivity.
Name one thing that you, as a consumer, have not been able to get a consequence of the Seuz being blocked?
Just to give you one example, there is a months worth of raw material for FFP2 masks on there somewhere.
Why are you restricting this to consumers? There are plenty of businesses getting hurt by this.
With the delay, it might still come to us.
Gas at $2.79/gal
I guarantee everyone will forget about it soon. Same as with pandemic, in 10 years, if the new virus strikes, governments around the world we clueless.
> Same as with pandemic, in 10 years, if the new virus strikes, governments around the world we clueless.
SARS in 2004 primed Hong Kong for a robust virus response in 2020. As much as the HK government gets wrong, they've done a really good job so far with SARS-CoV2. We have 7.5 million people, and about 120 deaths so far from SARS-CoV2.
Though, a lot of this boils down to the fatality rate of the original SARS being something like 10%, so it was more terrifying but ultimately less dangerous on a population level due to lower transmissibility.
SARS in 2004 primed Hong Kong for a robust virus response in 2020. As much as the HK government gets wrong, they've done a really good job so far with SARS-CoV2. We have 7.5 million people, and about 120 deaths so far from SARS-CoV2.
Though, a lot of this boils down to the fatality rate of the original SARS being something like 10%, so it was more terrifying but ultimately less dangerous on a population level due to lower transmissibility.
And we have a global mindset in Europe, right? So we could have learned from others. But somehow nobody invested in contact tracing infrastructure, PPE production, etc. Why? Because you can't justify more spending for something that "could happen". There's an enormous tax burden already in the EU, and governments will be struggling even more with healthcare costs in the next decades. I doubt someone will stockpile millions of KN95 masks "just in case" after the pandemic is over. Because that costs money.
East Asia in general has done really well with Covid. In the US, I fear that nobody will learn anything from Covid. Those who treated it as nothing more than the flu will come out of this feeling that they were right all along and treat the next pandemic exactly the same way. There was one guy interviewed at the Trump rally in Tulsa who had a friend die from Covid and still went to a rally without a mask saying he didn't know what to think about the pandemic.
On the flip side, it is a technological miracle that 1 year and a day after I was last in the office, I was able to get my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine (or, for that matter, that a vaccine even existed).
Technology is the only thing we humans have going for us. Our collective memory is just as poor now as it was thousands of years ago
More of a very large DOS attack, but in all seriousness what would happen if some rogue state decided to launch a missile into the side of one of these in the missile of the canal, how long would clean up operation take.
How about a well placed 50-500kg? shaped charge to take out the rudder
Unless it happens to end up diagonally like this one, it would probably just be tugged off, no?
Actually ships already have the option to take the long way around Africa.
I don't think it's a single point of failure, more like a bottleneck with delays.
But over the last few decades we have been much more efficient with globalization, but the just-in-time aspect is like a traffic jam, where one slow spot makes everyone everywhere back up and wait in traffic affecting everything.
But over the last few decades we have been much more efficient with globalization, but the just-in-time aspect is like a traffic jam, where one slow spot makes everyone everywhere back up and wait in traffic affecting everything.
Most of the Suez Canal is twinned, this ship got stuck in the southern single lane area.
I think Egypt will more seriously consider twinning the southern part after this event.
I think Egypt will more seriously consider twinning the southern part after this event.
Umm.. There was never single point of failure. Just single point of delay. It's not as if there are perishable goods on those ships.
> Umm.. There was never single point of failure. Just single point of delay. It's not as if there are perishable goods on those ships.
What do you think they use reefer containers for? Container vessels often have loads of perishable goods on them. Though it's often biased one-way. E.g. Latin America to Europe? Loads and loads of bananas. Norway to anywhere? Salmon!
The bananas are green when plucked; they ripen during the voyage.
What do you think they use reefer containers for? Container vessels often have loads of perishable goods on them. Though it's often biased one-way. E.g. Latin America to Europe? Loads and loads of bananas. Norway to anywhere? Salmon!
The bananas are green when plucked; they ripen during the voyage.
There are lots of livestock on ships in the queue, something on the order of 100,000 animals will literally perish.
If this is so, my guess is that there will be a lot of well fed fish on both sides of the Suez Canal.
Would they not just be able to transport more feed? (At least for most)
"The nearby ports of Said and Suez could be used to reload fodder if supplies run low, though the process may not be straightforward with so many ships in the queue."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/26/at-least...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/26/at-least...
Lots of goods shipped are effectively perishable, in that you may as well write them off and dump them somewhere if the shipment misses a particular sales season.
If that was true for the Evergreen ship, wouldn't they have dismantled the ship by now then? Not saying you're wrong overall, maybe it just doesn't apply to this particular shipment. As far as I know, we don't know exactly what is on the Ever Given.
> If that was true for the Evergreen ship, wouldn't they have dismantled the ship by now then?
The vessel is completely filled with containers. To discharge a container you need a crane. Further, some perishable things, that's why shippers have insurance.
Not sure what you mean with 'dismantle' though. It's rather obvious you never seen such a vessel up close. It's nor like a pc. If you want a specific container, it can often be a complete hassle to get to it. This as loads of other containers are stacked on top.
The vessel is completely filled with containers. To discharge a container you need a crane. Further, some perishable things, that's why shippers have insurance.
Not sure what you mean with 'dismantle' though. It's rather obvious you never seen such a vessel up close. It's nor like a pc. If you want a specific container, it can often be a complete hassle to get to it. This as loads of other containers are stacked on top.
Even if it was empty and in a suitable dock, dismantling a ship that size would take weeks at minimum.
Except the sheep
The real stuck ship was the friends we made along the way
That was a very stressful decision at 4:30am, so glad it was the right call.
Probably just me but it seemed overall poor reporting on the whole incident. News channels had "experts" basically reading Wikipedia facts.
Way too many economist were asked their opinions, which were all prefaced with "it could be". Never once did I see an interview with a container ship captain, civil or marine engineer.
Big News these days just seems to be about regurgitating shaky videos from social media.
Way too many economist were asked their opinions, which were all prefaced with "it could be". Never once did I see an interview with a container ship captain, civil or marine engineer.
Big News these days just seems to be about regurgitating shaky videos from social media.
[0]Sort of.
[0]: https://istheshipstillstuck.com/
[0]: https://istheshipstillstuck.com/
Looks like it has moved slightly https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9811000
It does seem that the compass heading of the ship is now closer to parallel with the canal. One of the things I wonder about (this all comes from AIS data), is that I have observed some ships only have accurate compass headings on marinetraffic and vesselfinder for the 'arrow' of direction when they are underway, at 4-5 knots or more, and other ships such as this one show compass headings when they are at a dead stop.
AIS transmission frequency and message contents are dependent on nav status and speed. Nav status is set by humans. Beyond a certain speed AIS ignores nav status and transmits underway messages at underway frequency. Its been a few years since I've had to read the specs so I dont quite remember the details of what changes in message contents. Im guessing that you are seeing some vessels that havent set an underway nav status.
It depends on the source of heading for the AIS device. If using GPS heading then yes, you need to be underway to calculate heading. If the AIS is using ship heading then it should always be available. The AIS spec is mature but unfortunately not much guidance was given for the installation.
On commercial vessels it's simply linked through NMEA 0183. Heading information usually are provided by either a gyro compass, gps compass or fluxgate compass. Depending on size of vessel, legal requirements and so on.
More likely NEMA2000 which is on CAN, as opposed to serial (not RS232, but only an electrical engineer can understand the difference). CAN vs serial requires different message formats, but the difference is irrelevant if you don't have to implement it. (I've personally had to implement both)
Surprisingly much of the commercial style SOLAS equipment still sadly runs on NMEA 0183. It is a real hassle if you have a split system with some converters not liking each other, different baud rates for "high speed(!!!)" and so on. Ugh. Been there done that.
Like the Sailor 6222 Class A GMDSS VHF which is found in loads of commercial vessels and still is their "newest" model. That only accepts NMEA 0183 inputs.
Like the Sailor 6222 Class A GMDSS VHF which is found in loads of commercial vessels and still is their "newest" model. That only accepts NMEA 0183 inputs.
I wouldn't be surprised if that "much" was "most." I did a couple of small projects for a commercial fishing vessel a few years back to ingest NMEA0183 sentences and convert them to an AIS message (I think he was connecting it to a newer chart plotter that only had AIS input).
I recall asking if this functionality wasn't available off the shelf and the answer was that it existed, but it was difficult without also buying a lot of new equipment he didn't need. It apparently cost a lot less to have me do the data conversions (and I didn't charge much for it) on a small SBC than it would to have to buy new equipment and deal with installation, fitment issues, etc.
I recall asking if this functionality wasn't available off the shelf and the answer was that it existed, but it was difficult without also buying a lot of new equipment he didn't need. It apparently cost a lot less to have me do the data conversions (and I didn't charge much for it) on a small SBC than it would to have to buy new equipment and deal with installation, fitment issues, etc.
Agreed. these ships are full of electronic sensors... but the tech installed the AIS transponder what did he use for heading? the ship gyro or one of the dozen gps receivers installed. This was not well defined and sloppy. Nobody asked questions..you just wanted to be compliant. They were not initially thrilled about being constantly tracked. Ideally always use the GYRO.. dont complicate life using GPS heading. If the gyro is out the ship is anchored most likely.
You can get accurate heading from GPS by placing two receivers far apart from each other. It would be sorta silly to do on a smaller ship, but a big ship would likely have multiple GPS receivers anyway.
It would be interesting to try as a DIY project on a small ship, for an electronics experiment... Since high quality GPS+Glonass receivers with the ublock m8n chipset are like $35 a piece now, and have standard UART interfaces on them. You could find a very small IP69 rated enclosure, connect one at the front of the ship to a small arduino with a RS485 link or ethernet back to some electronics in the pilothouse.
The issue here is less about the GPS signals and more about the math to compute heading. Its complicated, we did this in the early 2000's for ship pilots (portable heading system) in the US with mixed results. By the way you can get heading, COG and rate of turn. Rate of TURN is really what these pilots use from what I understand. (give you future prediction of bow / stern)
If you do this, do read up on Kalman and/or particle filters to stabilize the output and maybe even add in an IMU module. GNSS sensors have a fair amount of variance from atmospheric disturbances, so their reported position can jump around a fair bit. If you are out of range of DGPS stations you can have errors of 1-2m easily, which could lead to jumps in perceived course of tens of degrees.
Better yet, ignore Kalman filtering and read up on RTKLIB. You want moving baseline for this and you need some receivers that will give you raw measurements. Basically if you're trying to measure the distance between two GPS receivers that are relatively close together much of the error will be the same so measuring the delta between them is highly accurate. Here's a guy who did this on a kayak and the accuracy was quite good with only a 3m baseline.
https://community.emlid.com/t/using-a-pair-of-reach-units-as...
He was post processing the data, but part of RTKLIB is RTKNAVI which is real time and I haven't used it but in theory I'd think RTKNAVI would support moving baseline as well. Post processing should be slightly more accurate as you can use measurements in the future as well but it should still be very accurate real time.
https://community.emlid.com/t/using-a-pair-of-reach-units-as...
He was post processing the data, but part of RTKLIB is RTKNAVI which is real time and I haven't used it but in theory I'd think RTKNAVI would support moving baseline as well. Post processing should be slightly more accurate as you can use measurements in the future as well but it should still be very accurate real time.
Two receivers in the same general location tend to see the same atmospheric distortion, so a naive solution for demonstration purposes can still work well assuming the receivers mostly use the same satellites. No need to make an experiment for fun more complicated than you want to, although filters can be fun!
As others have mentioned, There's much better you can do if you're going for optimal and you have the raw satellite timing information from both receivers.
You can go to the extreme and build a full blown IMU that's tolerant to GPS outages. If it's sensitive enough, you can even measure the rotation of the planet. Big expensive ships presumably have that. The boats on a tracker that glitch their orientation when stopped seemingly don't have that, or at least don't have it integrated with that tracking system.
As others have mentioned, There's much better you can do if you're going for optimal and you have the raw satellite timing information from both receivers.
You can go to the extreme and build a full blown IMU that's tolerant to GPS outages. If it's sensitive enough, you can even measure the rotation of the planet. Big expensive ships presumably have that. The boats on a tracker that glitch their orientation when stopped seemingly don't have that, or at least don't have it integrated with that tracking system.
A single receiver with two frontends/antennas at arms length sharing a clock could probably determine direction fairly well. That’s no arduino process as you would have to implement the receiver from scratch to do this.
same general concept as antenna alignment tools used by tower climbing contractors. It has both magnetic compasses and several GPS receivers in it.
https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/products/3z-rf-vision
https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/products/3z-rf-vision
Those things exist, and they work pretty good. I don't know if they have a single receiver or a separate receiver for each antenna. Examples:
http://www.jrc.co.jp/eng/product/lineup/jlr21_31/pdf/JLR-21....
https://comnav.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WEB_GNSS-G2G2B...
A traditional gyrocompass is the more common option though, I think.
http://www.jrc.co.jp/eng/product/lineup/jlr21_31/pdf/JLR-21....
https://comnav.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WEB_GNSS-G2G2B...
A traditional gyrocompass is the more common option though, I think.
A purpose-made device that estimates orientation by measuring the phase shift in the GPS carrier waves would be pretty cool. GPS receivers synchronize their internal clocks to GPS time within nanoseconds anyway, though, so it seems like getting raw timing data from two receivers and processing them together is still pretty good and doable without having to DIY a GPS receiver.
Well this is just how GPS works. Each satellite broadcasts what time it is and you calculate your position by knowing the orbit of each satellite and the varying delays in “now” timing received from a few satellites because of the speed of light and a few higher order effects.
That can get you xyzt position, if you want your three dof direction too, a second receiver/fe/antenna can do a second fix and the differential between the two can be used to find the orientation.
You can do this with a smaller antenna separation better by going down the stack into the guts of the receiver math but it’s difficult because these things are implemented in hardware and encumbered by arms control regulatory hurdles.
That can get you xyzt position, if you want your three dof direction too, a second receiver/fe/antenna can do a second fix and the differential between the two can be used to find the orientation.
You can do this with a smaller antenna separation better by going down the stack into the guts of the receiver math but it’s difficult because these things are implemented in hardware and encumbered by arms control regulatory hurdles.
Ships usually have inertial measurement units for heading and attitude. Even smaller boats have IMUs for better autopilot performance, but vessels of this size have sensors precise enough for strap-down navigation with little enough drift to bridge potential GPS outages.
[deleted]
Many ships, and certainly all large oceangoing vessels, transmit both course over ground (direction of motion) and heading (direction the bow is pointed). Sites like MarineTraffic and VesselFinder use the heading to draw the vessels on the map in the correct orientation, but in the vessel details they only display the course over ground as far as I can see.
Inland-only vessels don't always have a gyrocompass or GPS compass, or don't have it connected to the AIS transponder, in which cases they only transmit course over ground and not their heading.
Inland-only vessels don't always have a gyrocompass or GPS compass, or don't have it connected to the AIS transponder, in which cases they only transmit course over ground and not their heading.
You can see it in this video https://mobile.twitter.com/EgyProjects/status/13764078774438...
> The breakthrough in the rescue attempt came after diggers removed 27,000 cubic meters of sand, going deep into the banks of the canal.
Impressive. That's around 55,000 metric tons of wet sand, or a bit more than the mass of the Titanic.
Impressive. That's around 55,000 metric tons of wet sand, or a bit more than the mass of the Titanic.
And given the sand density, much larger volume.
Boats don't have a high density. It has to be lower than water or they won't float.
The Titanic does not float.
Fair cop.
I was trying to hint at the fact that "boat density" is not a very well defined concept.
Hehe, but still, it is a very funny remark and it points to a large assumption in the gggp: that all boats will float. They do, right up until you smash them into icebergs and such.
On a technicality such an event changes their density considerably, assuming we take that to mean 'everything inside the volume circumscribed by the hull', after all, whether you insert all that water through a hole in the front or in the top doesn't really matter, as long as the air gets displaced that will do the job nicely.
On a technicality such an event changes their density considerably, assuming we take that to mean 'everything inside the volume circumscribed by the hull', after all, whether you insert all that water through a hole in the front or in the top doesn't really matter, as long as the air gets displaced that will do the job nicely.
Yup, that's what I meant although it is not exactly "volume of the hull". The boat density should be something like "density as you would calculate it for any solid object" plus "all air below the water line". So solid parts always count and air only counts if its below the water line.
This way Titanic counts as just a heap of steel (and doesn't float) and Ever Given counts as steel-air mix (and floats).
This way Titanic counts as just a heap of steel (and doesn't float) and Ever Given counts as steel-air mix (and floats).
How to tell if your ship has sunk: the waterline is above your superstructure.
Is this due to U.S. military involvement? I remember reading they were sending dredging experts.
This isn’t a Hollywood movie. Another country is actually considered to be the expert in such matters.
Why a snarky response to a harmless question? The person asking the question didn’t say anything about US expertise or Egyptian expertise.
It’s considered condescending to send help in dire situations?
Damn, everyone is on the edge these days.
It’s considered condescending to send help in dire situations?
Damn, everyone is on the edge these days.
really... negative 4 votes for a legit question... hmm.
Even in normal operations the canal is being dredged continually, since it's basically a channel dug into sand that's continually dissolving in the water. Check out the cross sections here: it's much wider and more shallow (gradient up to 4:1) than you might think.
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/About/SuezCanal/Pages/C...
https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/About/SuezCanal/Pages/C...
They have a fleet of ~13 dredgers of different types:
https://www.dredgepoint.org/dredging-database/owners/suez-ca...
https://www.dredgepoint.org/dredging-database/owners/suez-ca...
The Dutch company Smit (part of Boskalis) was hired for this job.
Wow... navigating to this link brings up:
1) 33%-height ad for IBM at the top. 2) 20%-height offer to subscribe on the bottom. 3) Overlay asking for my email address which greys out the article.
Scrolling down, there is a autoplay video on the right sidebar along with most read content and ads.
The whole page is so bloated it lags my 1 year old MacBook just scrolling down.
1) 33%-height ad for IBM at the top. 2) 20%-height offer to subscribe on the bottom. 3) Overlay asking for my email address which greys out the article.
Scrolling down, there is a autoplay video on the right sidebar along with most read content and ads.
The whole page is so bloated it lags my 1 year old MacBook just scrolling down.
I can’t believe there are people still browsing the web without an adblocker at the very minimum. Complain all you want about starving artists and as revenue, that shit is precisely why a lot of people use them.
Not a dig at parent, but a general observation.
Not a dig at parent, but a general observation.
Not the OP, but generally speaking by not having ad-blockers installed I try to to give the more honest websites that rely on advertising a semblance of a chance at financially surviving. It's also a good way to decide which websites to visit and which to not visit, if said website is too bloated I close the tab immediately (like it happened here).
Or you could read the page, see that it's worth it, ask your adblocker to unblock this site and reload the page.
I have a hard time believing there’s any one or more than a literal Hand full who are so diligent as to actually do this for every site that is good enough. It’s a common talking point though as if it’s actually a practice that would could be common
I only visit 20-30 sites over a week that I feel obliged to unblock as I visit them weekly and they don't offer a subscription for an ad free experience. If it helps them in anyway, I'm all for it. 3 of the admins I have managed to email questions to have also declined me sending them money or buying them a beer/coffee via paypal
I'd love if every small website had a tip jar, buy them a coffee every week/fortnight/month
This doesn’t sound like what you were describing as a strategy before. Now you’re saying you have the same sites unblocked. In your previous comment, you advised that if the content is good, you can unblock ads then.
That is what I said is a common trope, but is an inconvenience, hard to remember, and likely not done by many if any people. You don’t appear to do it either.
Same with your tip jar. You say small sites which isn’t wrong. However in your case you’re only topping the same 2 dozen sites you go to.
Not every site or app has the same engagement necessities. If a site can be visited much less but is very helpful, it’ll likely get much less tip money than a less helpful but regularly visited site that gets your dopamine going. I’m not saying this as fact. It’s something I believe could be true with no backing.
That is what I said is a common trope, but is an inconvenience, hard to remember, and likely not done by many if any people. You don’t appear to do it either.
Same with your tip jar. You say small sites which isn’t wrong. However in your case you’re only topping the same 2 dozen sites you go to.
Not every site or app has the same engagement necessities. If a site can be visited much less but is very helpful, it’ll likely get much less tip money than a less helpful but regularly visited site that gets your dopamine going. I’m not saying this as fact. It’s something I believe could be true with no backing.
I think you might have be mixed up for a poster further up stream and I am getting both response?
Yes. I assumed you were the poster I responded to initially saying to whitelist sites if you like them. My apologies.
I wonder if there is any headless-browser-as-a-plugin that could be employed to "watch" these ads. Because paying with my own attention, ummm, no, thanks.
Needs to be somewhat randomized to simulate a real human, so that the supported site wasn't punished for ad pumping (which I am committing, they are not).
Needs to be somewhat randomized to simulate a real human, so that the supported site wasn't punished for ad pumping (which I am committing, they are not).
Like adnauseum?
https://adnauseam.io/
Not exactly. Just tried it out for a day and although I dig the general model, I do not see specifically what parent could use.
Adnauseam clicks everything to ruin the entire ecosystem.
Instead I looked for something like: hide-and-click ads on selected valuable sites, hide-or-block ads everywhere else.
Adnauseam clicks everything to ruin the entire ecosystem.
Instead I looked for something like: hide-and-click ads on selected valuable sites, hide-or-block ads everywhere else.
Also, I uninstalled Adnauseam because I see ads. Turns out Peter Lowe's list is unsupported on purpose: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/issues/999
HN sometimes gets annoyed at pirates of software when it involves their software. Like Mac apps. Some can’t believe people pay for Mac apps.
Works fine with JS off. Remember when we had plugins to have flash off and you need to click on the flash element to allow it to load? In Vivaldi I can keep JS off and whitelist websites that deserve JS because they need it, like maybe they have a simulation/animation/game thing on it.
QuickJavascriptSwitcher is a Chrome extension that lets me toggle JS on/off for a domain.
uBlock has a handy "turn off js" button in its advanced ui, I regularly use it for bloomberg.
Curious if you can have JS off for all and just whitelist as you need, whitelisting seems safer and more efficient for technical people that can guess if something is wrong when JS is off.
Yes, there is a setting in the dashboard to disable JS by default and enabled as needed.[1]
Even more advanced users can set up uBO to work in default-deny mode to only allow resources from specific 3rd-party domains as needed, and on a per-site basis.[2]
* * *
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
Even more advanced users can set up uBO to work in default-deny mode to only allow resources from specific 3rd-party domains as needed, and on a per-site basis.[2]
* * *
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...
[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium...
I run NoScript so I default to JS off for every site and will allow only what I need to allow to get a specific site to work.
uMatrix, just disable global 1st-party:
* * * block
* * css allow
* * frame block
* * image allow
* 1st-party frame allow
On the other hand, the site is quite usable with an ad-blocker.
quite useable as a subscriber too
That is to be expected outside the smol web. :)
However, Firefox for Android with uBlock Origin shows the article without a trace of what you're describing.
However, Firefox for Android with uBlock Origin shows the article without a trace of what you're describing.
Not to mention, Brave browser detected 40 trackers. Big part of the reason I canceled my BBG subscription.
And they somehow make the Back button on my browser hit their homepage.
It is called url history hijacking and a common "dark pattern". There are event websites which will block you to ever coming back to where you started (i.e. when navigating away from hacker news).
Thats the issue with modern web apis: Browsers add them with good intent to allow for modern web apps and improve UX, and advertisers abuse it to cripple UX but bring up "engagement" with the website.
Thats the issue with modern web apis: Browsers add them with good intent to allow for modern web apps and improve UX, and advertisers abuse it to cripple UX but bring up "engagement" with the website.
That is annoying. You can right click the back button of your browser to select the proper history entry and go back to where you came from.
Who picks up the tab for all this (both for the work done to free the ship and the losses by Suez authorities and other ships)? The company operating the ship? The ship owner? The insurance company? Suez authorities?
By default it will likely be the canal authority who was very motivated to recover the functionality of their waterway. They probably spent significant time and money getting the ship unstuck. And they'll likely try to recover it from the shipping company who owned the Evergreen^H^H^H^H^HGiven.
But if the canal authority's pilot was at the helm when it ran aground, there's likely to be some difficulty getting the shippers to pay without a court involved.
EDIT: ship name was incorrect
But if the canal authority's pilot was at the helm when it ran aground, there's likely to be some difficulty getting the shippers to pay without a court involved.
EDIT: ship name was incorrect
Evergreen is the shipping company, Ever Given is the ship. I’ve been enjoying all the memes about this situation and seeing all the ships queued up is wild.
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Doesn’t the canal make it mandatory that one of their pilot control the ship to navigate the canal? If so, and unless this is due to poor maintenance or another cause that’s the result of evergreens actions, I have a hard time imagining the canal authority not being on the hook for the problem they created.
Why wouldn’t it be the canals pilot?
Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job.
The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind.
The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank.
Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable.
I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job.
The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind.
The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank.
Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable.
I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
> Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable.
In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
Are 30mph winds rare there? That seems quite mild. Why hasn’t this happened before?
We may never know, but it's possible the wind shifted unusually rapidly or chaotically, reversed, or with a ship like that the wind force at the bow and stern were unusually different or even opposite.
The master is still responsible for the pilots actions. This can create contention sometimes.
I imagine the earlier incident with the same ship being underpowered to counteract wind will be sufficient for the canal-supplied pilot not to change overall culpability. But that will probably end in court, as insurers are loathe to pay what they should until they are obligated and their get-outs are legally squashed.
[deleted]
From what I've read, normally it is a local pilot/agent that commands the ships through Suez and not the captain, so I guess the shipping company is off the hook.
What about if mechanical failure of the ship was a factor.
big engineering failures rarely have a one dimensional cause. There are usually many failures and many opportunities to have prevented the failure.
Armchair blaming just isn’t a useful exercise, very few people have the context to understand what might have happened and rallying up a chorus of people who know little blaming entities they had never heard of is less than useless.
Armchair blaming just isn’t a useful exercise, very few people have the context to understand what might have happened and rallying up a chorus of people who know little blaming entities they had never heard of is less than useless.
This ships have to be accompanied by tugs, to prevent this kind of errors, if the sandstorm was so big that even the tugs were unable to maintain control of the ships, maybe the error was from the canal authority to give the permission to transit the canal without looking the weather forecast.
I don't think this is correct based on some of the maritime law I read. My understanding is that the Panama canal is the only place in the world to where the Pilot assumes charge of the ship. Everywhere else, the Captain remains the authority. Also, the helmsmen would have been from the crew. The pilot would simply be giving adjustments.
As to whom is responsible monetarily ::shrugs::, it seemed like an act of God caused this so I have no clue.
As to whom is responsible monetarily ::shrugs::, it seemed like an act of God caused this so I have no clue.
Likely the ships' insurers. According to this video, while there is a Canal pilot on board, the ship's captain has a "Master's Overriding Authority":
https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=204
https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=204
That was very informative
I imagine right now the Suez Canal Authority because it's in their best interest to get traffic flowing again as soon as possible. Then once things are stable everyone involved will start suing each other.
> Then once things are stable everyone involved will start suing each other.
Well, their insurance companies maybe... Or maybe they'll just work it out.
Well, their insurance companies maybe... Or maybe they'll just work it out.
This video shows well what work they do. And the wind still pushing.
https://twitter.com/EgyProjects/status/1376280699234357248
https://twitter.com/EgyProjects/status/1376280699234357248
benatkin(1)
> Later on Monday morning, a second heavy tugboat arrives to pull the ship off completely. In addition, water will be sprayed under the ship with great force to wash away sand and clay. If it is not possible to clear the front of the ship in this way, containers may have to be unloaded from the front of the ship.
(Dutch source: https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/vastgelopen-containerschip-s...)
(Dutch source: https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/vastgelopen-containerschip-s...)
I fail to understand why they didn't/don't use the tugboats to wash the water away. Even small boats can cause a lot of scour with their bow thrusters along a vertical quay wall (which the Ever Given is in a way). The erosive power of a 16MW engine is really something to not be underestimated.
I imagine it’s a mix of
1. They can’t manoeuvre tugs into the right location due to the aforementioned silt and dirt the Ever Given is stuck on/dug up.
2. Tug bow trusters are difficult to aim. Plus how do you hold them steady? They can only fire in one direction at a time, so you have no ability to create a reaction thrust to prevent the tug from moving.
3. Tug thrusters don’t enjoy ingesting huge amounts silt and earth when they’re operating. Which invariably will happen if they’re close enough to banks to have a useful erosive effect.
1. They can’t manoeuvre tugs into the right location due to the aforementioned silt and dirt the Ever Given is stuck on/dug up.
2. Tug bow trusters are difficult to aim. Plus how do you hold them steady? They can only fire in one direction at a time, so you have no ability to create a reaction thrust to prevent the tug from moving.
3. Tug thrusters don’t enjoy ingesting huge amounts silt and earth when they’re operating. Which invariably will happen if they’re close enough to banks to have a useful erosive effect.
There’s been like 2 dudes out there with an excavator for a week. Absolutely nothing about this has made any sense. Based on the amount of revenue lost due to this blockage you’d think every military on the earth would have descended there.
It's not just 2 dude:
https://youtu.be/xLh1676KRaE?t=20
another interesting view:
https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/GXjmBPgKzxDcYYksztfQHjNhNl...
https://youtu.be/xLh1676KRaE?t=20
another interesting view:
https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/GXjmBPgKzxDcYYksztfQHjNhNl...
That's just that first image. Meanwhile they've been going at it day and night with 6 long boom excavators at the same time.
At this point, I wonder if it economically would cost less to just destroy the vessel
Kurzgesagt tweeted about this (specifically using a nuke to remove the vessel). It's surprising just how big a nuke you would need to remove such a large vessel.
https://twitter.com/Kurz_Gesagt/status/1375607865721958403?s...
https://twitter.com/Kurz_Gesagt/status/1375607865721958403?s...
I fail to understand why so many people are proposing this alternative as if blowing up tonnes of cargo in the water, surroundings and air would be fine from an environmental point of view.
The Hollywood effect.
All crises, worldwide, are eventually solved by the American military blowing shit up.
All crises, worldwide, are eventually solved by the American military blowing shit up.
Also: No laws governing other countries.
Or even just filling the canal with debris.
And spread debris throughout the canal, causing more delays as they try to clean that up?
Because that worked so well for Florence, Oregon's exploding whale...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
[deleted]
[deleted]
>I fail to understand why they didn't/don't use the tugboats to wash the water away. Even small boats can cause a lot of scour with their bow thrusters
If the following video explanation is accurate, a tugboat's turbulence can't scour down to ~50 ft depth of sand: https://youtu.be/zBvFuq7Mkzs?t=1m00s
I think the confusion we have with all these news reports is that we really don't have a definitive visualization or geometry of how its actually stuck in the sand that's accurate/authoritative. A bunch of overhead drone shots don't really reveal to us the true extent of the problem that's hidden underneath the waterline.
We just see words about tugboats arriving and water spraying so our instinct is to simplify the problem to "I don't understand why they can't just do <X>?!?"
EDIT to add informative deep link of how the ship got stuck mentioned by another thread: https://youtu.be/5iyn2q6s1Sk?t=4m28s
If the following video explanation is accurate, a tugboat's turbulence can't scour down to ~50 ft depth of sand: https://youtu.be/zBvFuq7Mkzs?t=1m00s
I think the confusion we have with all these news reports is that we really don't have a definitive visualization or geometry of how its actually stuck in the sand that's accurate/authoritative. A bunch of overhead drone shots don't really reveal to us the true extent of the problem that's hidden underneath the waterline.
We just see words about tugboats arriving and water spraying so our instinct is to simplify the problem to "I don't understand why they can't just do <X>?!?"
EDIT to add informative deep link of how the ship got stuck mentioned by another thread: https://youtu.be/5iyn2q6s1Sk?t=4m28s
Here is an attempt to draw a cross-section of the situation: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2021/03/26/suez-canal-s...
Great link. That was the diagram I had been wanting to see.
Tearing down Chesterton’s Fence:
"Don’t demand that people stop doing a thing until you fully understand why they think it was worth doing.
Only when you fully understand their perspective should you then argue with their specific reasoning."
Closing Chesterton’s Gate:
“Don’t ask rhetorically why people don’t simply do a thing, until you fully understand why they considered but rejected that thing.
Only when you fully understand their perspective should you then argue with their specific reasoning."
"Don’t demand that people stop doing a thing until you fully understand why they think it was worth doing.
Only when you fully understand their perspective should you then argue with their specific reasoning."
Closing Chesterton’s Gate:
“Don’t ask rhetorically why people don’t simply do a thing, until you fully understand why they considered but rejected that thing.
Only when you fully understand their perspective should you then argue with their specific reasoning."
> Don’t ask rhetorically why people don’t simply do a thing [emphasis mine]
Though asking with curiosity, humility and joy, can convert an "argument from failure of imagination" into a "It seems my understanding of the world isn't matching the world! Yay! Learning opportunity! Help me leverage this, let it not slip by unexploited, please?". Those can be wonderfully Aha! fruitful. First step of a bugfix is finding a failure case.
Though asking with curiosity, humility and joy, can convert an "argument from failure of imagination" into a "It seems my understanding of the world isn't matching the world! Yay! Learning opportunity! Help me leverage this, let it not slip by unexploited, please?". Those can be wonderfully Aha! fruitful. First step of a bugfix is finding a failure case.
"Was it X that meant you couldn't do Y?" is the best way to phrase it if possible. It demonstrates an attempt, even if it's just a simple one, to understand it, and implies you have faith the other party haven't missed something obvious. Thinking of an X often answers the question for you, stops you looking stupid.
Every now and then, the reply is "that would have been a good idea actually" in which case you still get to look smart. So it's a win+win really.
Every now and then, the reply is "that would have been a good idea actually" in which case you still get to look smart. So it's a win+win really.
Interesting. There are dozens of websites writing about this event, but users of Hacker News upvote the link, where you can not read an article without paying for it.
A subscription to Bloomberg digital costs about $419/year.
Try incognito.
Or bypass paywalls extension
Does not really work. I think it hides under a different JS banner.
Please don’t complain about paywalls here - it’s against the guidelines and boring.
It is? Yikes. If there's a paywall, I just end up reading the comments and never the article. Oh well.
It's in the FAQs:
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
I can read it and I didn't pay for it. You probably visited the website too many times and it hit the paywall limit.
Interesting. You could attempt to self-serve with a workaround and share the result, but instead you chose to complain out loud.
Anyways here is a mirror if you can't read due to the paywall: https://archive.is/RL4my
Anyways here is a mirror if you can't read due to the paywall: https://archive.is/RL4my
I think it is wrong to steal the work of others (circumventing the conditions under which the author is willing to offer you their work).
If the law is bad, breaking it is not a solution. Changing the law is a solution.
If the law is bad, breaking it is not a solution. Changing the law is a solution.
> If the law is bad, breaking it is not a solution.
Breaking the law is often instrumental to changing it. The progressive collapse of marijuana prohibition wouldn't have happened if people hadn't consistently disobeyed the law. Civil Rights wouldn't have happened without people actively breaking the laws at issue.
And so on.
Breaking the law is often instrumental to changing it. The progressive collapse of marijuana prohibition wouldn't have happened if people hadn't consistently disobeyed the law. Civil Rights wouldn't have happened without people actively breaking the laws at issue.
And so on.
We are talking about two different things.
Should the author of some text have a right to ask money from people, for allowing them to read it? I think they should have such right and it is wrong to break it.
Should the users of Hacker News promote expensive software, websites ... when there are cheaper or free alternatives? The users of Hacker News should be educated. Unless Bloomberg has several HN accounts and upvoted this link itself.
Should the author of some text have a right to ask money from people, for allowing them to read it? I think they should have such right and it is wrong to break it.
Should the users of Hacker News promote expensive software, websites ... when there are cheaper or free alternatives? The users of Hacker News should be educated. Unless Bloomberg has several HN accounts and upvoted this link itself.
> Should the author of some text have a right to ask money from people, for allowing them to read it? I think they should have such right and it is wrong to break it.
So your issue isn't “if you think the law is wrong, breaking it isn't a solution” but “disagreeing with the law is wrong”. Which may be a legitimate opinion, but it is dishonest to say the first when you mean the second, and your disagreement with the action isn't because you think people should work to change the law without breaking it as a tactical approaches, but because you think people should support the law in the first place.
So your issue isn't “if you think the law is wrong, breaking it isn't a solution” but “disagreeing with the law is wrong”. Which may be a legitimate opinion, but it is dishonest to say the first when you mean the second, and your disagreement with the action isn't because you think people should work to change the law without breaking it as a tactical approaches, but because you think people should support the law in the first place.
Just turn off js or go incognito. Are you a hacker or not?
> “We need to be realistic and that is that the stem of the ship is still very much stuck” [emphasis added]
I am reminded of this website (forgive the profanity):
https://fuckyeahkeming.com/
And this ceramic piece:
https://geary.smugmug.com/Art/i-qCBqjqb
I am reminded of this website (forgive the profanity):
https://fuckyeahkeming.com/
And this ceramic piece:
https://geary.smugmug.com/Art/i-qCBqjqb
Have you never heard the phrase ‘from stem to stern?’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_(ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_(ship)
Well now I feel rather foolish. Thank you for enlightening me about this. :-)
What is the risk of rogue waves breaking ships taking the Cape route?
Same as it always was. Ships take the Cape route every day.
Zero. Those ships are built to be ocean-going.
Ok but I watched a program about this and they said the cost in making it freak wave proof was very high, and the solution was to avoid areas where there are freak waves. The Cape is one of those places
My layman's intuition would suggest that once one end is free, it should be possible to "wiggle" the other end out. If they can rotate the hull into a more parallel position, couldn't they rotate it back, repeatedly, with a longitudal vector component in addition to pulling sideways, and pull the other end out a little with every direction change? I'd expect a sandy canal ground to have a quite considerable delta between static and dynamic friction.
Will they build a second one for safety? Maybe through Israel?
A second, completely separate one, would go through the Sinai peninsula and not Israel. But that's probably not needed: about half of the Suez Canal is dual-lane. It's probably more economic to dig a parallel canal in those single-lane sections than to start a brand new one.
Gotta double track the bastard!
OK, everyone, the ship's refloated, yoohoo! Now we can go back to Just In Time inventory, because there's nothing whatsoever that can go wrong now!
I find your comment quite trite.
It can be boiled down to: Ha! Things can disrupt JIT operations, don't these bozos know that?
In reality these decisions are made by professionals armed with heaps of statistics to make the best decision. I'm a nobody who knows nothing, yet I understand that ships are sometimes late. It is sometimes caused by weather, or mechanical issues, or piracy, or war. I trust that the professional know this too and more. Why do you think you know better than them what fits their reliability guarantees and budget the best?
It can be boiled down to: Ha! Things can disrupt JIT operations, don't these bozos know that?
In reality these decisions are made by professionals armed with heaps of statistics to make the best decision. I'm a nobody who knows nothing, yet I understand that ships are sometimes late. It is sometimes caused by weather, or mechanical issues, or piracy, or war. I trust that the professional know this too and more. Why do you think you know better than them what fits their reliability guarantees and budget the best?
I've seen enough decisions made in companies to put a lot less trust into "they employ experts, I'm sure they do the right thing".
If there was a article on HN about a company sunk by its excessive inventory and storage costs, we'd all be kibitzing about how they should use JIT inventory. Some companies make mistakes, some people aren't as expert as they think, but in aggregate I can't really do anything but assume that other people know more than I do about most things.
> Why do you think you know better than them what fits their reliability guarantees and budget the best?
The point isn’t whether JIT meets “their reliability guarantees and budget the best” — it’s whether what companies guarantee and provide is best for society at large.
That a company benefits from JIT is irrelevant to what OP was saying and your “trust the experts” response is a non sequitur.
Also, I worked on a team doing logistics for a F10 company — your faith in “experts” is wildly misplaced.
The point isn’t whether JIT meets “their reliability guarantees and budget the best” — it’s whether what companies guarantee and provide is best for society at large.
That a company benefits from JIT is irrelevant to what OP was saying and your “trust the experts” response is a non sequitur.
Also, I worked on a team doing logistics for a F10 company — your faith in “experts” is wildly misplaced.
Well, we could just ‘appeal to authority’ on things but then why have Hacker News, where intelligent people can come and discuss things?
As for this specific question, it’s the same thing people said in 2007 about mortgages: “these are experts - what makes you think they haven’t adequately considered the risk?”
As for this specific question, it’s the same thing people said in 2007 about mortgages: “these are experts - what makes you think they haven’t adequately considered the risk?”
This is not an appeal to authority. The comment in question was insinuating that people (who?) will return using JIT inventories (return from what?) because they don't foresee the dangers the commenter in question can see. (What dangers? What does the commenter propose instead? To whom?)
What you mistake for an appeal to authority is in reality a plea to consider the question deeper than in a 147 character snide remark. After all there are people who spend day in, day out thinking about supply chains, so maybe they have thought about this deeper than what fits into that many characters?
For example one of the sibling comments here writes that while JIT might be in the companies interest it's not in society's interest. That is a super interesting question. Properly unpacking even just the question would take a lot more characters.
Or maybe there are some systemic biasses which makes logistic experts blind to these looming dangers?
Or maybe actually everything is fine and the sky is not falling? I assume people are not making as much money as they could, but is anyone going to go cold/hungry/loosing their job because of this incident in some way I don't see yet?
All of these questions and more could provide the substance for a worthy discussion in a way a snide remark can't.
What you mistake for an appeal to authority is in reality a plea to consider the question deeper than in a 147 character snide remark. After all there are people who spend day in, day out thinking about supply chains, so maybe they have thought about this deeper than what fits into that many characters?
For example one of the sibling comments here writes that while JIT might be in the companies interest it's not in society's interest. That is a super interesting question. Properly unpacking even just the question would take a lot more characters.
Or maybe there are some systemic biasses which makes logistic experts blind to these looming dangers?
Or maybe actually everything is fine and the sky is not falling? I assume people are not making as much money as they could, but is anyone going to go cold/hungry/loosing their job because of this incident in some way I don't see yet?
All of these questions and more could provide the substance for a worthy discussion in a way a snide remark can't.
I seem to recall that as originally conceived in the Toyota Production System, suppliers of Just In Time inventory were supposed to be sited in the same location as you. I wasn't able to find a reference for this though ...
When I was working with a logistics firm who did JIT for Seagate/Hitachi, the warehouse was across the street from Hitachi and they could handtruck deliver hard drives if need be.
Even that probably wouldn’t save you from an event like this if you’re in Europe because your supplier’s supplier (or your supplier’s supplier’s supplier, you get the gist) probably sends things through the Suez.
Yes, JIT inventory meant delivered "from the warehouse to the workstation" and not "intercontinentally shipped with extremely slim margins."
But that's not what has happened here. Continually increasing demand (read population growth + geo-conglomeration of industries) has stretched the global supply network(s) to fragility, necessitating JIT in absurd distances and quantities, in turn requiring ships 400mx50m to squeeze through canals they barely clear the bed of at speeds slow enough for them to not cause over-swell but not fast enough for them to have enough thrust to overcome crosswinds.
But that's not what has happened here. Continually increasing demand (read population growth + geo-conglomeration of industries) has stretched the global supply network(s) to fragility, necessitating JIT in absurd distances and quantities, in turn requiring ships 400mx50m to squeeze through canals they barely clear the bed of at speeds slow enough for them to not cause over-swell but not fast enough for them to have enough thrust to overcome crosswinds.
Sounds like an opportunity for the country to start on another canal. They'll be able to take advantage of the clear demand, solve the issues of the existing, have a redundancy plan if either canal has an issue or needs repairs and I don't think it'll have a hard time getting support considering everything going on at the moment.
If I remember correctly, one of the early bits of hype around Dell was basically having all of their suppliers right there next to them.
They don't have to be in the same location. However the farther you are from the site of production the more product needed in queue. Toyota stocks the parts bin on the assembly line from a warehouse on site. The warehouse is stocked less often than the parts bins. Depending on how long it takes to get an order the warehouse has more of some parts than others. Toyota also has extra parts as risk management where they determine that there is a high risk of the part not being available to order. Toyota also shares their order predictions with suppliers well in advance so the supplier can plan ahead what they need to deliver. Toyota also knows their supply chain 6+ level deep, if mine workers go on strike they prepare backup plans for 6 months out. Toyota also does a lot of other things that I'm not aware of to ensure that when they need something it arrives, not a moment sooner or latter.
Toyota isn't the only company that does this. If you supply Toyota they require you to do this in some form, including making your suppliers do it. (this is part of knowing their suppliers 6 levels deep - something they also do to ensure they don't use slave/child labor even indirectly). There are other companies that don't supply Toyota that have also taken this same lesson.
The point is just in time is hard to do right. The simple elevator pitch has many obvious problems that those who do it are careful about ensuring they don't happen.
Toyota isn't the only company that does this. If you supply Toyota they require you to do this in some form, including making your suppliers do it. (this is part of knowing their suppliers 6 levels deep - something they also do to ensure they don't use slave/child labor even indirectly). There are other companies that don't supply Toyota that have also taken this same lesson.
The point is just in time is hard to do right. The simple elevator pitch has many obvious problems that those who do it are careful about ensuring they don't happen.
Too bad so many automakers failed to understand that continuous delivery means continuous purchasing.
You cannot just stop buying your chips for a year and then complain when manufacturers re-tooled around you.
You cannot just stop buying your chips for a year and then complain when manufacturers re-tooled around you.
local buffers need to be sized to the bandwidth-delay product. come on computer people, you should know this.
I would really be surprised if anything managed by JIT was on that ship. JIT is mostly done in the last step before assembly, and even there buffets are put in place. JIT works badly with demand fluctuations (the further upstream, the worse those get in a supply chain) and supply fluctuations. And even without a blocked canal, two weeks of delay with containers is pretty common. Weather, port congestion, customs,... you name it.
It is a quite common misconception that supply chains all run on JIT nowadays.
It is a quite common misconception that supply chains all run on JIT nowadays.
Much of the canal has two separate lanes. It's unfortunate that the ship was stuck in the section that had only one lane.
I wonder if there will be a project to create a 2nd lane.
I wonder if there will be a project to create a 2nd lane.
I did some thinking about this idea on my blog - https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/homeostasis_volatilit...
the short: think of it like the Kelly Criterion. There's an optimal level of risk to take here, which you can update based on real world experiences.
the short: think of it like the Kelly Criterion. There's an optimal level of risk to take here, which you can update based on real world experiences.
If you don't use JIT your competition will put you out of business before the next ship blocks Suez canal.
Perhaps the benefits of JiT inventory exceed the costs of occasional disruptions.
Very true, but this whole incident was caused by greed. This ship should NEVER have been let into the canal in the first place. I expect it and ones of its size won't be again. The size makes the wind much more of a problem and the size makes the rescue efforts problematic as well.
You know that the ship was designed specifically around the published size limit of the canal, don't you?
The published size limits are probably OK, but there is still discretion around whether a ship needs Tug accompaniment or not.
Requiring more ships to have tugs might limit total throughput - so there is indeed a strategic financial calculation.
Requiring more ships to have tugs might limit total throughput - so there is indeed a strategic financial calculation.
Yes, like 125cc motorcycles and Easyjet sized carry on luggage the minute you publish maximum dimensions you can expect someone to size their product exactly to the limit.
I think a more realistic outcome is that ships of this size require auxiliary tugs to transit.
I think a more realistic outcome is that ships of this size require auxiliary tugs to transit.
They could have given a limit with adequate margin for safety to begin with, too. I suppose they still could change the limits. Shipping companies that have ships over the new limit would be pissed, but it’s not like there is a real alternative to the Suez Canal.
There are some complications, for example some huge Cruise ships have so much manoeuvrability that they could transit in reverse without breaking a sweat. Similarly large military ships with powerful rudders and multiple engines. Even if the size is the same the manoeuvrability is not even close.
Or in certain forecast weather conditions ships over a certain windage will require to be escorted by a tug or will have to wait.
Yeah, that seems pretty sensible. I think the outcome will probably be the result of a commercial negotiation between the canal operators, some of the largest shipping companies and their insurers.
It also depends on what the actual cause was in this case. I think there will likely be an investigation by the maritime authority of the ships flag state.
It also depends on what the actual cause was in this case. I think there will likely be an investigation by the maritime authority of the ships flag state.
A great utilization of resonance. I wonder if they installed sensitive vibrational analytics to help understand the optimal frequency for dislodging.
I think they should widen the canal. It is too narrow for the behemoth ships that are going on it now.
What good are all the ballistic missiles we're all stockpiling if we can't use them to widen a canal
Seems that is in the canal center now and moving!
is the solution wider canal or shorter boats?