Entry tags:
We live in a mathematically illiterate world...
Apparantly I am the first person in three years to query this...
Can you spot the problem?
The skip dimensions don't multiply to give the quoted volume. The 2.5-3.5m cubed skip actually holds 2.28m cubed. (It's unclear where the length dimension is measured. If it's the longest point, then the discrepancy is even worse.)
Other skip websites appear to have the same incorrect figures.
You're not allowed to load beyond the top of the wall of the skip.
Can you spot the problem?
The skip dimensions don't multiply to give the quoted volume. The 2.5-3.5m cubed skip actually holds 2.28m cubed. (It's unclear where the length dimension is measured. If it's the longest point, then the discrepancy is even worse.)
Other skip websites appear to have the same incorrect figures.
You're not allowed to load beyond the top of the wall of the skip.

no subject
....except that virtually every skip I've ever seen has been loaded above its walls, by the simple expedient of their users sticking in old doors or other large pieces of wood to form new, higher "walls". And next time you look, they've been taken away, presumably as is, because there's never any of the excess load left behind.
no subject
I'm quoting the restriction, (from the web site) because this obviously means they can't claim that you can get to the quoted volume by piling high.
no subject
That doesn't let you exceed a volume computed from the highest sides. Although deforming them into something closer to a sphere does. Are we allowed to melt the raw material down and recast it before filling the skip? :-)
no subject
I don't think 0.22m^3 amounts to all that much anyway. A couple of brieze blocks, maybe.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Innumerate, then :-)
I wouldn't have spotted this - numbers and I have never been friends. With words, I get along fine. Although I may have wondered why they state their skips' capacities as variable figures whilst the dimensions are fixed. If the lowest figure is a minimum, shouldn't it be, erm, zero?
Oh well...
no subject
Yes. Having had that pointed out, I find it very odd. Didn't occur to me to wonder at it to begin with, though, I admit.
The variable number of black bags I can understand, since different people fill them differently and with different things (some more compressible than others).
But surely something of fixed dimensions ought to have a fixed capacity (even before one gets to the vole-ish point of actually doing the maths and realising that Something Is Not Right...)
no subject
no subject
no subject