It has been argued before [0] that Leibniz notation being embraced in mainland Europe and not adopted in England/UK was the reason England fell about a century behind. First heard of this in MIT Calc undergrad course on YouTube, but would be too tedious to find which video, hence ran a search on the Internet.
Neither did I, until I got this lovely idiot who's probably bipolar and probably on the spectrum. They're motivated by food, yes; and we're motivated by unconditional love.
Not sure if GP meant the math for just the trains bit. There is an increase in handling, and everytime the container changes hands, it's going to cost (assuming dearly). First the ship has to berth (cost), unloaded using QC gantry (cost) onto an ITV (cost) where it gets stacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) in a yard (cost) and then unstacked using a stacker/gantry (cost) onto a truck/ITV (cost) which takes it to a stacker/gantry (cost) which then stacks it onto a train (cost). This is then probably going to be reversed on the other side of the train destination assuming it's a port.
>Over the years I've learned to a limited extent how to convey ideas without drawing on terminology which most people aren't familiar with, but that has taken decades of practice.
I think this is one of the most remarkable lifeskills to have. Personally, I feel stupid when I find myself between a jargon laced conversation. On the other hand, I respond very well to clearly communicated (not ELI5, but simple) ideas.
Putting things across as simply as possible is very difficult to master IMO.
[0] https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/7704/was-english-mat...