> This is actually not a million dollars in singles. It is over $1,000,000. The box was created with the wrong dimensions by the contractor, but they still decided to fill it, display it, and claim it is $1,000,000.
>
> Source: Tour Guide at the Chicago Fed
This thread is very informative on your chances of carrying off a heist stealing this cube.
Conclusion: Low, unless you're willing to take only a fraction of the face value.
Thinking through it though - you might be able to get away with spending the cash overseas, where it will take some time indeed for the money to be under scrutiny by banks to see if the serial numbers are out of circulation. There's then problem of getting the money there without anyone noticing, then there's the problem of what kind of characters you're going to be defrauding overseas.
All told - probably a better idea is to use all that cleverness to make a 1.5 million dollars the good old fashioned way: Spending a few years saying, "Nothing from my end" on Zoom calls.
I definitely know people who do almost nothing (they mostly show up to meetings and don't talk), and get paid really well because they can tell stories decently about their impact, and nobody seemingly has the stomach to throw them under the bus. I get paid better than them for sure, but I'm also at risk of getting laid off because of the practical upshot of being a top contributor. I am sure I will eventually get laid off, and they will outlast me at this company.
The tech industry is insane. While my "Nothing from my end" joke was tongue-in-cheek, it's parodying a very real dynamic.
I'd say a small (single digit) percentage of people are able to accumulate $1.5 million over "a few" (2-3) years of working, but maybe I'm out of touch.
Given you use dollars, I'll use US economics as the benchmark. Your estimate only applies to the 1%, according to https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom..., according to [0], the top 1% earners has a minimal gross income of $682,577 per year; deduct taxes, cost of living and other expenses, there's no way they'd save up $1.5 million over 2-3 years.
Yeah you're very much out of touch, what kind of income are you earning or is this more wishful thinking?
It's doable, but it took me closer to 20 years.
I got to zero net assets in July 2001. Retired from paid work (mainly sw eng contracting) at the start of covid in April 2020.
I should say, at the start I wasn't married and had no dependents. Also, for large parts of those 20 years, I didn't need to own or use a car.
That sounds more like "a couple". Personally I think "a few" would be anywhere from 3-9, which is more reasonable, if still handily above the median national income (like 250k a year if you save and invest well).
How about when a recipe tells you to let something soak / marinate / rise / whatever "overnight". When really should I start? When really does it end? Is 8am one day to 4pm the next day (32h) the same as 9pm one day to 7am the next day (10h)?
I think for a lot of things it doesn't matter, so either 10h or 32h are okay (eg. soaking beans, marinating meat). If it says overnight I assume the time doesn't really matter that much.
Yeah, I use pear to marinate thinly sliced beef (my variant of bulgogi). I wouldn't let that marinate overnight either. An hour or so is enough. Too much pear for too long and the meat becomes so soft it almost falls apart.
My wife and I just discovered that we have different beliefs about "this Friday" vs. "Next Friday". I never even knew there was another possibility, so it's cool to see this mentioned here so soon after.
"This Friday" is the one during the current week, provided it's currently earlier than Friday. If it's Saturday/Sunday already and I want to talk about the Friday that's only 5 days away I would say "this coming Friday" (or just "Friday").
"Next Friday" is always a week+ away. If it's Tuesday and I say "next Friday", I ALWAYS mean the day 10 days away.
If someone says "next Friday" to me and they mean the one in a few days I'll look at them like they're crazy.
Every time I hear it, it befuddles me just like the first time. It seems like a syntax error or something. My mind literally reels, like the idea is a fish and I can nearly feel the fishing line drag but the syntax and grammar isn’t rigidly applied, and so I can’t increase the tension or the line will snap, as it isn’t rated for this hefty and impactful of an idea as when something occurs specifically. I don’t know if that fish story adds anything, but I realized that there was some potential for wordplay that helps explain how it feels perceptually to hear these English words in nonstandard order from someone to whom it is standard. It’s strange.
How do I know the missing word isn’t [up]coming, as in “Friday (coming [up] (this)) week”? As opposed to next week, which would be “Friday (next) week” in this syntax.
For that matter, the missing word could be this, as in “Friday (this) week” versus “Friday (that (as in the next one after the one contrasted with via the word this) week”. I have no way to disambiguate this, so I ask something like “Friday after tomorrow” or “Friday the 13th” or something. It’s hard being me at times, I’ll admit.
In Germany it‘s even more confusing. In the West people say „Viertel nach Neun“ and “Viertel vor Zehn” which is pretty much „quarter past nine“ and “quarter to ten”, while in Eastern Germany people say “Viertel Zehn” and “Dreiviertel Zehn” which rather means “quarter of ten” and “three quarters of ten”. Even though they are meaning exactly the same times.
My English-speaking father with German heritage said both “quarter to ten” for 9:45 and “quarter of ten” for 10:15. He’s the only person I’ve heard say “quarter of ten”. Now I know that could be from his German heritage even though he never learned German.
Reasonably commonly used in Commonwealth countries.
Next Friday is sometimes too ambiguous, you can never be sure you share the same definition with the other person. Is it the same as This Friday (the very next occurring Friday), or Friday Week (ie next week's Friday).
I heard it used this way in Australia, and I’ve heard it now and then in British TV programs. Only have heard it among very old timers in isolated areas in the US a few times when I was very young previously.
What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times? How can you know that they don’t from an isolated utterance? Can you know with reasonable certainty that the person saying it knows what you think they mean?
From context you might know if it seems like they know how to use the phrase, but I always struggle to understand these quirks, perhaps because I heard these terms as an adult and haven’t used them much myself, or been exposed to them and the context enough to immerse myself in the colloquial usage by diffusion.
This is close to weird constructions like “x is deceptively y” like “the dog is deceptively large” which, without already knowing the size of the dog, makes me feel like a dunce because I don’t know while not giving me enough specificity to know if the the largeness is what is deceptive or just the perception of the largeness. It’s a syntactical tarpit.
> I use "<day> week" in conversation, but I'd say it's falling out of favour. I mostly use it with my parents.
I am a native English (US) speaker, and I think it’s a British English thing perhaps, as I heard it all the time in Australia, along with other week-related terms like fortnight.
> What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times?
Well, I suppose they could, but then what if they meant Thursday?
“Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”. Its partner is “Friday coming”, which is “count forward until a Friday”.
> > What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times?
> Well, I suppose they could, but then what if they meant Thursday?
> “Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”. Its partner is “Friday coming”, which is “count forward until a Friday”.
That’s good that it’s unambiguous to you, as you happen to be correctly interpreting the meaning from the words as written, but I don’t read the context the same way, as in, your reading doesn’t always read as written, when I’m doing the reading. It comes naturally to you, it seems, but less so to me, if I can explain.
To me, “Friday coming/this coming Friday” is just as underspecified because it communicates explicitly ambiguously that which is definitively known due to unknown knowns and/or unknown unknowns: you don’t know if I know what day it is today or not, and on days I haven’t been outside yet, I may not know if it’s AM/PM or midnight or noon. I could think I know what day it is and be honestly mistaken, leading me to believe that the next/coming Friday is a day away, as in tomorrow, but miss that it’s already Friday today, making the listener think I mean a week from now, when I mean right now for events taking place on the night of the day in question.
I also think it’s ambiguous what “coming/next Friday” means, because it’s obvious that the one coming up this week is coming up, so it seems too on the nose to refer to it as such, which makes me think that it’s a week from now, but this time, they actually do mean the Friday a few days from now.
I think this discussion of "Friday week" has people talking at cross purposes, and there may not be any real disagreement. It's an idiom, and if you're part of a (sub-)culture that has this idiom, its meaning is unambiguous. But if it's unfamiliar to you, you can't be expected to deduce its meaning from first principles.
Someone upthread mentioned "half ten", which is similar: if you're familiar with the idiom, you know it unambiguously means half past ten, but if you're not, you can't be sure that it doesn't mean 9.30 (or, for the literalists among us, 5.00).
Anyone telling you that you're wrong for not understanding it, or that you should start using it even though those around you are unfamiliar with it, is being silly; but I don't think anyone here is doing that.
> is being silly; but I don't think anyone here is doing that.
I think it’s silly that English has these quirks, and it’s silly to engage with them as points of argument, which isn’t what I mean to do, but rather to show how my own thought process works, silly it may be. It’s okay to embrace silliness in the environment as long as it isn’t detracting from understanding. This thread is exploring the words, not arguing with each other or trying to convince the other, so it’s not at cross purposes to me. But I think I agree that there may be no disagreement?
Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the silly. ;)
Fair enough! I didn't mean to push against any exploration of this sort of thing; I think it's interesting too (and even if I didn't, that would be no reason to try to impose my feelings on others).
I think the main thing I was responding to was this --
> That’s good that it’s unambiguous to you, as you happen to be correctly interpreting the meaning from the words as written, but I don’t read the context the same way, as in, your reading doesn’t always read as written, when I’m doing the reading.
-- which I (perhaps wrongly) took to be arguing against, or slightly misunderstanding, the claim of the person you were responding to. I don't think they were claiming that the words as written are inherently unambiguous, and I don't think it's a question of reading the context; I think it's just an idiomatic phrase that has a fixed meaning for those who natively use it. It's a bit like a dialect word; it's only ambiguous in the sense that people who don't speak the dialect won't know how to interpret it.
(It could turn out that I'm factually wrong about this, and that there are different groups who use the phrase in mutually contradictory ways! But so far I've only seen a split between groups who use it to mean "the Friday after this coming Friday" and groups who don't use it at all.)
I didn’t interpret anything you said as prescriptive, but it did seem to be perhaps peremptory in a way where you were trying to adjudicate a supposed dispute that wasn’t actually occurring, but I appreciate your contributions as descriptive of how you interpreted the thread and your views on the term. I appreciated the nuanced interrogatory approach in a Socratic way and its lack of sophistry. I think you understand the situation, but some people struggle with how to respond to these phrasings more than others perhaps.
Interestingly, in the languages where do you say "half ten", it unambiguously means 9:30 not 10:30. For example, in German you would say halb zehn (or "half ten" / "half to ten"), which means 9:30.
> “Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”.
Well, no, the typical case would be that it means nothing at all and the other person thinks you're having a stroke. Zero potential meanings isn't actually better than two potential meanings.
You know what's really unambiguous? "Friday the 8th".
That's just a spicy way of saying "I am unfamiliar with this idiom". Nobody is saying you should unilaterally start using it in the US, or in any other context where nobody would understand you. They're saying that, for those who do have this idiom, it is unambiguous.
There's a little bit more to it than that. I am unfamiliar with the idiom, and the idiom does not appear to be grammatical English, suggesting that something has gone wrong rather than that the speaker is using a foreign vocabulary item. Most idioms don't look like word salad, but this one does.
"Friday week" would ordinarily mean a week characterized in some way by Friday, but of course there can be no such week. There could be a "Good Friday week".
Your original complaint was that the phrase is meaningless. To people who are familiar with it, it's obviously not meaningless! For those who are unfamiliar with it, I'd say the bafflingness is more feature than bug; you'll immediately know that you've encountered an unfamiliar phrase (or missed a word), rather than trying to piece it together logically and coming away with an illusion of understanding.
(Yeah, it would be even better if it just made sense transparently and unambiguously to all listeners. But that leaves us with a complaint about idioms in general, not this one in particular.)
> "Friday week" would ordinarily mean a week characterized in some way by Friday, but of course there can be no such week. There could be a "Good Friday week".
I think there was that one or maybe two times the Catholic Church changed the day or date? I don’t know much about it but that may have resulted in a week without a Friday, which would make the next one pretty good, when it happened.
> Sorry, of which month in which year under what calender?
Whichever could be a theoretical possibility for whatever you're describing the date of. In almost all cases, there will only be one choice. But in other cases, the speaker will provide the rest of the date.
Exactly the point, requires clarification, doesn't stand on it's own, is hardly unambiguous.
Moreover most people are surrounded by by people using the same calendar and don't clarify, it's an issue for travellers and data reconciliation across boundaries.
That said, it's the month and year that are most lacking from a simple { Dayname, day of month } pairing.
(a) I generally don’t schedule things in the middle of the night
and
(b) it’s well understood amongst my social circles that if you’re for some reason trying to schedule something at the end of a party at 2am Friday then for basically all purposes it’s still Thursday
—-
But also once time zones are involved it’s better to just give a date, time and zone for clarity. That doesn’t mean people need to apply the same to their personal life and use it even where shorthand is unambiguous.
I'd go off the timezone of whoever made the statement, but honestly this is where it's better to simply clarify by saying "just checking, that's in 8 days, yeah?" or similar.
My wife and I have a disagreement about "the other day".
I use it to mean, a time up to two years ago. She uses it to mean up to no more than a month.
I think the disagreement is because I have a better memory - two years ago does not feel so distant to me. It is a silly and fun thing to argue about, leading to some agreements on terminology:
A while ago - 2- 10 years
Back in the day - 10+ years ago
And just to troll her, I boldly make the claim, "just now" means any time between now and a week ago.
Oh no, a whole new bunch of time-wimey words I hadn't even considered! :-)
I'm no authority but to me using "the other day" as a phrase is trying to impart a rough reference to a point in time.
Which means we're talking in "day" timeframes where week or month wouldn't be suitable. I would expect "the other day" to be within a week, but accept no more than a month.
Similarly "some months ago" = probably less than 6 months but definitely no more than a year.
The world is a wonderful place and the ways we humans can confuse communication seemingly knows no bounds. But I don't want a proscriptive definition for each little casual phrase as I think this flexibility in language is why it keeps changing and being alive!
Not that I'm any authority but I'd use "several" interchangeably with "few".
The sibling comment suggestion of using it in the [gap] does make sense though...
There was a contestant on a recent season of Survivor who, iirc, gave up on a challenge because the host said it would take "several hours" to finish. Later the contestant explained that "last I checked several means seven", and about an hour into the challenge he realized he wouldn't last for seven hours, so he quit.. (When the host said "several hours" I believe he meant about 4 hours)
This of course led to much ridicule and many memes in the fandom, and Survivor even titled the seventh episode of that season "Episode Several". In post-season interviews the contestant is still adamant that several means seven.
Personally, after having worked in a hardware store, I always confirm. "grab me a couple of those please" - "is two enough, or do you need a few extra?"
I'm one of those people for whom a couple is 3-5, but never 2. I would just say "two".
Despite coming across like I was trying to correct you, I only meant to give my personal understanding of “handful”
I don’t know where I got my idea of handful, but it probably came from how high I can count using the fingers on one hand. So far that understanding seems to work for me when other people say it as long as I do what you said and treat it as an approximation.
On the “several” topic, I used to think it meant “about seven” because of the shared “sev” prefix, but it didn’t take long to realize several has a much bigger range than that.
This is what I love about language. "several" and "handful" have waaay different meanings to me.
In practice my immediate response for "several" would be to use it interchangeably with "few". 3-5.
But all these comments make me think that maybe it should fill my [gap] at "seven-ish". I mean, the "seve" bit does kinda lend itself.
[0] Tangentially, several is from 'Medieval Latin separalis "separable," ' as in '(as in went their several ways)' . So to link it with "seven" would be a weird thing to do but I imagine this kind of thing happens with a living language.
As for "handful"... you and I are worlds apart on that one! :-P Hand has four fingers, five digits. So "handful" is 4-5 for me. But as other comments alluded, if the [thing] is a batch of small something (like sand) then it's simply how much you can grasp.
As I mentioned these words have surprisingly varied definitions between people! One of the wonders of a living language.
So if I said "hand me a couple of screws, would you?" - you'd give me exactly 2? If you know you want an exact number I would always use the exact number. I'd never say "give me a dozen screws", I'd just say "give me 12 screws". Named quantities are almost always a range rather than a definitive number as far as I'm concerned.
Ahh, that's different than referring to a count of things though - you can't hand a couple of married people to someone, for example. But "Hand me a couple of screws, would you?" - I'd pass them 3-4 screws, not 2.
Great! In that case I'll take two handfuls of bowling balls and several wheelbarrows. Maybe I should get a couple (4) more wheelbarrows to be safe, bring it down to under 4 balls per barrow
What if you have a couple of couples? I think if it’s a couple, meaning two, that a couple couples could be two of however many the original couple is for the first couple, and the third one might couple with both members of the original couple, so I could see three as being a couple to a certain reading, though paradoxically four seems like one too many unless they are two couples of either one or a couple of kinds.
>> you might be able to get away with spending the cash overseas
Outside the US is probably the last place you'd want to pass those bills off. Besides the logistical problem of physically getting an enormous stack of $1 bills past customs... there's so much counterfeit US currency out there that the level of caution is extremely high. Just spent a couple weeks in Costa Rica, and USD is not accepted anywhere if it is even slightly torn, worn, or out of date by more than a few years. Maybe you could tip with it, but that's about it.
> to see if the serial numbers are out of circulation.
Cash cannot be invalidated like this. It would ruin the value of all cash since you could no longer trust cash from anyone. Only damaged notes are taken out and replaced by the government.
This is something you see in movies. Cash is by nature not traceable, so invalidating notes after issue would make it impossible to trust any cash transaction.
Man how expensive was that contractor when your art installation requires $1M in cash and all the labor to assemble it, but you can't just tell the contractor to do a new box?
They can. But if the delivered box meets the ordered specifications they will ask for extra compensation to redo it.
That plus cost of shipping back and forth.
That plus any possible time pressure around opening of the exhibit.
That plus the fact that the Fed can obtain bank notes for less than their face value. (If they are for example voided bank notes. But they can also just order prop money beyond the first layer if they want to keep their museum work and their official business separate. Which very well might be easier for organisational, accounting and security reasons.)
Plus nobody wants to admit that they screwed up the box order.
All these factors would point towards just stuffing the box with more “banknotes” and pretending that all is well.
I think Rai stones would be even better for that. One, because of their own history and usage, and two, because it is not the usual example everybody is already used to, showing that the concept is bigger and not bound to our modern society.
> The ownership of a large stone, which would be too difficult to move, was established by its history as recorded in oral tradition rather than by its location. Appending a transfer to the oral history of the stone thus effected a change of ownership.
> Some modern economists have viewed Rai stones as a form of money, and the stones are often used as a demonstration of the fact that the value of some forms of money can be assigned purely through a shared belief in said value.
...
> Rai stones were, and still are, used in rare important social transactions, such as marriage, inheritance, political deals, sign of an alliance, ransom of the battle dead, or, rarely, in exchange for food. Many are placed in front of meetinghouses, around village courts, or along pathways.
> Although the ownership of a particular stone might change, the stone itself is rarely moved due to its weight and risk of damage. Thus the physical location of a stone was often not significant: ownership was established by shared agreement and could be transferred even without physical access to the stone. Each large stone had an oral history that included the names of previous owners. In one instance, a large rai being transported by canoe and outrigger was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as any other stone.
The phrase "good enough for government work" was actually not originally meant ironically. It was for Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration and it was an optimistic statement on the quality of the work.
(a) How do we know there isn't some hollow part inside the cube?
(b) Whovever hypothetically got that money would have 37% stolen by the government so they'd be left with about a million anyways. It's effectively a million.
Given that they are not contradicting, but supporting each other i would suggest to believe both. The blogpost says they counted the pile and it is more than a million dollar. The redit post says that a tour guide says it is more than a million dollar because the box was too big. That is the same information verified two different ways. Why do you feel the need to chose who you believe here?
Back in the late 70s my uncle was at an auto show in Chicago at the McCormick place. There was a VW filled with beer cans of some particular brand. You could submit your name and your guess of the number of cans of beer and whomever was closest to the actual count won the beer (but not the car). My uncle won.
How did he guess so well? He was there very early on and he noticed a stack of cardboard trays stacked up in the corner of the venue. He counted the number of trays, multiplied by 24, and submitted that number. :-)
EDIT: I forgot to mention he was a functional alcoholic who drank beer constantly. It is appropriate he won it, but I'm not sure if was good for him.
back in the day at when I worked at a Seattle company there was a contest where a vase with an oblate spheroid shape was filled with M&Ms was left in the kitchen with some instructions for submitting guesses as to the total.
I created a 3D model of the vase in Blender, used some Python to get the interior area, and then found a figure for the average volume of M&Ms to get a count.
my guess was off by about half, but was very close to many of the other engineers' numbers, to the point where we asked them to recount. the recount revealed I was closest and it turns out they had used a method other than counting for the original number (they weighed them or something... it was way off).
> For all we know, the middle is just air and crumpled-up old newspaper.
I think this is the answer. I suspect the exhibit designers had a cool idea for a display, did a rough estimate of the area needed and then commissioned the exhibit builders to make the big metal-framed cube. Either they made an error in their calculation or the innate variability in the size of stacks of used bills threw it off. It's also possible the exhibit designer simply decided a bigger cube which filled the floor to ceiling space would be a better visual. Which would be unfortunate because, personally, the exhibit concept I'm more interested in is "$1M dollars in $100 bills fits in this area" not "Here's $1M in bills." The first concept is mildly interesting while the second is just a stunt.
Regardless of the reason it's off, I think it's most likely there's only $1M of bills in the cube. The folks responsible for collecting and destroying used bills tend to be exacting in their auditing for obvious reasons. So when the exhibit designers got $1M in used bills approved and released, that's exactly how much they got. It also stands to reason that they'd design the cube a little bigger than their calculated area requirement to ensure at least $1M would fit (along with some method of padding the interior) - although >50% seems excessive for a variability margin, so I still think it was an aesthetic choice or calculation error. Of course, one could do a practical replication to verify the area required with $10,000 in $1 bills.
Regardless, it's an interesting observation and a cool counting program to help verify.
It could be that they measured a stack of bills sitting on a table, then did the math to make a metal frame to contain $1,000,000. But they didn't account for stacks compressing under the weight of higher stacks, and it wouldn't look as nice if the top part of the cube was empty.
Still, it does seem like it would be cheaper to rebuild the case than to add $500k to it. Maybe it's easy for the Fed to acquire more cash as long as it's guaranteed not to be spent.
It's the cost of paper not the dollar value. Also only the outermost bills need be real the rest could just be paper, or voided bills or whatever. But accounting can cover it. It's not gold or pennies where the currency costs what it is worth to make
It's only true for the smaller denominations, 1c and 5c for USD.
Other than that, coins are cheaper than bills on the long run, because they last longer. It would be cheaper for the US government to stop making $1 bills and have people use the $1 coins, but I guess old habits die hard.
A US quarter will work just fine in those trolleys that take 1/2 euro coins. I hang onto one for just that purpose because I won't accidentally spend it.
> How do they get people to return their trolleys to the bays?
There is no external force compelling US shoppers to do so. This has led to the (in)famous "shopping cart theory" [0], first posited like this:
The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test as to whether a person is capable of self-governing.
To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct.
A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with the law and the force that stands behind it.
The shopping cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society.
It's not a thing in most US cities. Since there's no incentive for individual people to return their trolleys it ends up being someone's job to collect the carts.
There is an excellent recent "The Answer is Transaction Costs" podcast episode (The Price of Pennies: Make or Buy?) outlining a proposal to save money by buying back coins instead of making new ones.
People are quick to state this as if it's a slam dunk case for 'we shouldn't make them any more', but I don't understand the thinking there. An individual coin can be used many many times to facilitate many many transactions before it eventually falls out of circulation through loss or damage. The amount you should spend on making coins of a given denomination has nothing to do with what the total face value of those coins is, but needs to be traded off against the value to the economy of having those coins in circulation. If spending more money on producing higher quality coins enables them to remain in circulation twice as long, it might be worthwhile even if the cost exceeds the face value.
It's a different story if the material value of the metal in the coin exceeds its face value - at that point it makes sense to go to a bank, change money into pennies, then scrap them and sell the copper. That would be bad.
But the reason pennies are a bad deal isn't because of their manufacturing cost, it's because their handling costs exceed the value of incorporating them in a transaction. Should a store go to the trouble of keeping pennies available, counting them, storing them, transferring them to the bank? Or should they round up change to the nearest five cents and take a 4c hit on each transaction where you'd have been able to use pennies? If your average transaction value is over a hundred dollars or so, like most supermarkets, and you only handle cash on one sale in 50 say, if handling pennies in your cash-management operation takes more than a few thousandths of one percent of your budget, it's costing you too much.
> It's a different story if the material value of the metal in the coin exceeds its face value - at that point it makes sense to go to a bank, change money into pennies, then scrap them and sell the copper. That would be bad.
Well, that is highly illegal and not very profitable vs the amount of risk. You'd be better off doing almost any other crime.
In my countries a decade or so ago we had a copper coin for roughly 1c. People started hoarding and defacing the coins then selling it as copper scraps. It was so rampant that I think it would have been infeasible to punish eveyrone. So the Govt just discountinued it.
I haven't been there but the plaque seen in the picture just says:
Have you ever wondered what one million dollars looks like? You don’t have to wonder anymore because you can see it right in front of you!
That does not say nor in my mind even implicate that these would be valid dollars. It just wants you to be able to "see" what a million would look like. For all we know they printed fake money for it that uses the right paper for thickness and such and the right face value print but is otherwise fake. It would still meet the stated description.
I would hope they at least used real bills they just took out of circulation for whatever reason but there can't be any real expectation.
It's a "stunt" only anyway coz a million in $1 coins would look way different. As would a million in 20s or 100s.
> Maybe it's easy for the Fed to acquire more cash as long as it's guaranteed not to be spent.
The Fed doesn't acquire cash, it creates it. USD banknotes are liabilities of the Fed, but that concept only makes sense when somebody other than itself owns them.
Not sure when exactly the Fed accounts for USD printed – i.e. only once distributed to somebody else, or as soon as they're printed and still owned by the Fed – but even in the latter case, asset and liability work out to exactly zero.
So this million USD might or might not have been accounted for, but it definitely does not need to be budgeted for.
So, in your mind, when the Federal Reserve prints a dollar bill - what's happening in accounting terms? I don't think your understanding of the way this works is consistent with the concept of money supply.
Not your parent but in my mind, when the Fed prints $1 million to replace old bills they take out of circulation and give then to people to stuff into a cube then in accounting terms basically nothing happens at all.
To be precise, the treasury prints the bills, not the federal reserve. The federal reserve balances what money is in circulation by selling or buying bonds. When they issue a bond, someone buys it, so money is removed from circulation. When they buy a bond, money is injected into circulation.
I'm not really familiar with accounting in English but is it really a liability in double-entry accounting? Wouldn't generating money basically be income? So if you sell $1000 worth of stuff, you credit the sales account for $1000 and debit your cash/bank account for $1000, and the account's basically a bottomless pit where you can draw as long as you're generating income.
> I'm not really familiar with accounting in English but is it really a liability in double-entry accounting?
Only if you're the central bank, but for them, it really is, yes. For everybody else, money held is an asset, since it's somebody else's (in this case, the central bank's) liability to them.
I mean, that's a very corporate accounting way of looking at it. But countries are not corporations, or even banks, and the abstraction is so leaky it's pretty much never worth using.
Double entry accounting has properties that allow it to track the flow of money, not just its state (current balance), so it useful for countries as well as corporations.
Even for corporations and individuals it works that way. If you write a check to yourself, it represents both an asset and a liability whose effects on your equity exactly cancel out.
It costs about $.032 to produce a 1 dollar note, so an extra 500000 new bills would be about $16k.
It could be even cheaper if these were old bills than needed to be pulled out of circulation. In that case they'ed be paying money to dispose of them anyways.
Paper money in the UK used to be incinerated, if they used the heat to generate power, or even just heat water for the facility, then there would still possibly be some cost in not burning it ... but much though.
Not sure if they still burn the plastic money, would be nice to imagine they dissolve it in acid and use it to make more money (but they probably can't because of the dyes, at least).
The compression of the bills under their own weight might account for the excessive margin - a lone $100 bundle, even compressed by hand before measuring, probably takes up more vertical space than the ones in the cube.
I think this is the most reasonable answer on the thread. As amusing as it is to see everyone come up with zany solutions, it is most likely something boring like this.
Rather than counting error it’s likely the ~1 ton weight of stacking bills like this would deform the lower sections and possibly stress the glass depending on thickness. So rather than random filler there may be internal structural bracing so the outside of the cube looks nice and neat.
Simplest way to double check is if top and bottom corners have the same bill density.
may be they started with a $1M and with time the bills weight compresses the bills, and they have periodically to add more to fill the newly forming emptiness. Kind of inflation.
> The folks responsible for collecting and destroying used bills tend to be exacting in their auditing for obvious reasons. So when the exhibit designers got $1M in used bills approved and released, that's exactly how much they got.
But who says that they didn't actually request $1.5M in used bills after doing the math of what it would take to make a cube. Or fill it up with $1M in used bills, and come back and make another request for $500k that also got approved...
Because going >50% over-budget isn't a good way to further anyone's career in exhibit design, engineering and construction.
I have a friend who works at a firm which specializes in engineering and constructing exhibits for museums and all kinds of public spaces. There's a whole industry ecosystem around doing this. They get brought in on contracts by design firms which specialize in permanent installation exhibits who get hired by the person responsible for exhibits at a museum or exhibit space. It's no different than most niche specialty industries. Even though it's comparatively small, there are still thousands of sites and hundreds of firms. People who do this specialize in it, develop long-term careers and have resumes they care about. Jobs for firms and people come by reputation and word of mouth. Delivering on time, on spec and on budget is crucial for survival. The facilities manager for this Fed building hired an exhibit space manager who developed a budget for this public tour project and then put it out to exhibit design firms for bids. The project was approved on a fixed budget and time frame. The overall budget the exhibit space manager submitted to the facilities manager certainly included the cost of the cash in the cube.
But the bigger reason no one was cavalier about just filling it up with $100 bills is that this exhibit is different because the exhibited artifact is of uniquely high-value (and unlike a Rembrandt, immediately spendable), so it probably had to have a security assessment and is very likely insured against loss (not just theft but fire/water damage etc). The cost of insuring and securing the exhibit was calculated before the budget was ever approved. Adding another 50% in cash would increase the insurance premium.
I reckon you're not very familiar with the world of government spending.
An engineer or artist that reliably find ways to go 50% over budget and generate contract extensions is a highly sought professional amongst vendors that specialize in the public sector.
In gov work contract extensions are almost guaranteed, provided your company also have the civic spirit of contributing to our democracy with health campaign donations.
> "U.S currency is produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and U.S. coins are produced by the U.S. Mint. Both organizations are bureaus of the U.S. Department of the Treasury."
But even if this exhibit was at a U.S. Mint site, your assumption doesn't account for how the real world works. The people involved in planning, creating and operating a public exhibit space like this on behalf of some museum, department or company are just regular employees who report to mid-level managers with careers in facilities management. I'm not an expert but if this was a U.S. Mint site, I'd guess that the bills on display would be technically 'retired' (or whatever term they have for bills that are removed from circulation). Since the Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental organization, I can't really guess if these bills are similarly retired or simply cash, the time-value of which this exhibit space is carrying on their balance sheet. Either way, based on the way the real world actually works, it's almost certain the cost of this cash is very precisely tracked and accounted for on an audited budget that some mid-level manager is responsible for balancing right alongside the payroll for ticket takers, security guards and janitorial.
If it's just diverting bills that were heading to be destroyed (not impossible looking at the end of the bills on the non strapped side they look pretty rough) they're not worth a million any more they're just scrap. If you were extra paranoid you could even partially destory the bills and leave only the outer edges needed for the display.
My wife works at the Fed, and I can confirm that 1) the Fed does decommission/retire bills and 2) that whole process is very tightly controlled. The retired bills are typically shredded, and if you go on a tour of a Fed bank, you can get little baggies of "Fed Shreds."
So it seems very likely to me that whatever money is in the cube is decommissioned.
That'd be fun, but I am pretty sure they get it electronically into their bank account — as in, no money is ever made for their salaries, just like most white collar workers.
As a side note: In some countries, central bank employees are the only individuals that can actually hold non-paper M0 (or MB?) money, since they get paid their salaries into a central bank account, which are otherwise only available to commercial banks. This used to be the case in Germany and Austria, but has been phased out at some point, as far as I remember.
But even if Fed employees just get paid in regular old M1 demand deposits, that's money nonetheless.
The Bank of England used to offer personal bank accounts to their employees, but they phased it out after 2015. Not sure if these accounts were exactly the same as those used for central banking though.
...I actually think you're being too nice. The exhibit implies that this is how big a cube of a million dollars would be. You can use it to get a sense of how much a million is.
If it's 50% too big, that's a serious mistake! They should, like, take down the exhibit until it's fixed. You can't just make one of the bars on a graph taller because it looks more impressive, or your pen slipped, or whatever else. This thing is inaccurate and they should fix it.
I think it's very unlikely there's real money in it. Most likely it's "real-ish" bills taken early from the production line without any of the security features, if not outright prop money - it's not like someone can inspect the printing or security features through the glass anyway. There's little upside in using real money, and plenty of downside.
Let's say the cube gets damaged and needs to go for a repair or rebuild - real money would require emptying it under supervision and counting the bills, where as fake money can just be sent as-is to the contractor, and any visible shortfall can be made up with more fake money upon return if needed).
Those downsides don't seem that bad to me. If something needed repair, they can bring a contractor on site, and certainly the Fed has cameras and police to monitor.
(In line with some other commenters, I'm more inclined to believe it's bills they've taken out of circulation than "almost finished" ones -- security features are built in throughout the process, not just an extra step at the end.)
Cameras still need to be monitored which costs money. Plus sleight-of-hand and other tricks are a thing, so you'd probably still need to background-check any contractors and maintain a strict chain of custody over access to the cube and then recount and re-check to make sure none of the currency has been substituted by lookalike fakes. Police still costs money.
If there is no reasonable way for the public to notice, why not make everyone's life easier by using fake money? That would be easier and cheaper.
Leaks can be dealt with by the legal system (pay people decently and make them sign an NDA in exchange not to disclose the bills are fake) which is much easier than actually keeping track of 1M of currency.
I think those bills didn't go through decommissioning process for used bills.
It's much easier to just keep $1M on passive cash balance forever. Yes, they lose about $5k/month on lost interest rate, but a bank can afford it.
$5k/month or $60k/year is roughly 6% of annual conformal interest rate — is there any bank that will provide that much return in USA today? (There are investment funds which usually do, but there are no guarantees there)
I'm not sure where the original guy got the idea that the bills are uniform in the interior. Seems just as likely that the visible faces of the cube are "display" with an interior backing cube (say out of thin plywood) inside which the balance of the funds are dumped, either in pretty stacks or just how they land.
Yeah, there's no way they piled the cash into a square on the floor and then measured it and then had the box made based on the measurements. They had the box made FIRST based on rough calculations, being sure to over-estimate it's size on purpose, knowing they can fill the interior with cardboard boxes as needed to space things out.
Considering they handle and transport a lot of money, it's safe to assume they don't meet to make back of the envelope estimations concerning weight and volume.
> personally, the exhibit concept I'm more interested in is "$1M dollars in $100 bills fits in this area" not "Here's $1M in bills." The first concept is mildly interesting while the second is just a stunt.
They have that maybe 50 feet away. It fits in a briefcase. Also, $1 million in $20s.
Because we still care about assigning sensible priors to whatever we think is the truth? You can use this to "analogize" how the feds handle money, but if they were actually careful with the money but a bit misleading on the space $1m would take, that's a different and less egregious error. Ignoring the space of potential possible explanations to make your analogy stronger is just confirmation bias with additional steps.
Though I do sometimes feel the pervasive casual cynicism we have everywhere today sort of creates a self-reinforcing cycle as it preemptively erodes trust.
I could not disagree more. Clarity is easy if you remove all detail from the world. There's no surer way for me to be disinterested in a position than it be absolute.
The opposite of clarity is not self-doubt but curiosity. And unlike cynicism it's constructive because it's not afraid of being challenged.
I never said anything absolute. Read it again. The remark was that clarity is often mistaken for cynicism, which is often true given the lengths people delude themselves about many things. It's not absolute. I qualified it as "often," which makes it extremely reasonable.
See what happened there? A clear statement was made, but obscured because you mistook it for cynicism.
The absolute I'm talking about in the GP comment, is in reference to the clarity you are referring to in the GGP. You don't actually provide any example of said clarity. And I didn't refer to anything you said directly as cynicism past the point in the chain where you state your preference towards analogizing a museum exhibit to an over-arching pattern about the Fed's handling of money. That to me is indeed casual cynicism, and it provides no clarity, only hand-wavy oversimplification with a defeatist sort of appeal.
Since you don't provide any other example of a statement that I would consider cynical, which in your view actually provides clarity, I'm having to use my own imagination as to what kind of "clarity confused for cynicism" you could possibly be referring to. Those are the statements I'm talking about in the GP comment. And I completely stand by what I said there.
Personally I'm a big fan of DotDotGoose [0]. Used by lots of people all over.
I discovered this when I had to test accuracy in a pose estimation model for a computer vision project involving crowds being counted by CCTV. Turns out in low-res imaging (even the best CCTV is a bit rubbish at long range due to wide angle lenses and so on), pose estimation models beat almost everything else for counting. Except... they're still not accurate.
I would spend hours going through hundreds of frames, counting people by hand, and then I'd compare with different pose models, and found they were always out, but they were out by the same amount.
Some models got confused by reflective surfaces, so would double count. Others would be out by ~20% every time for various environmental factors. The good thing about this is you could then easily show calibration. "OK, in that space, whatever the model says, half it, that's a better count", or "OK, in this image from this camera whatever the number the model says, increase/decrease it by 20%, and that'll be more accurate".
We ended up through human calibration being able to provide much more accurate "models" per camera than the models themselves.
It did mean counting hundreds of people per frame for hundreds of frames for dozens of cameras though... I had to abandon the trackpad for a mouse and just got settled in for a few days with DotDotGoose. Colleagues were surprised I had the patience for it. :-)
It's funny how all the comments seem to assume the conclusion is correct. I think it is far more likely that it is exactly $1M (plus or minus a couple of percent margin of error), and that the packing isn't uniform. It seems extremely unlikely to me that they would fuck it up so bad as to have $500k more in the box than claimed.
I also think it’s funny that so many comments assume they would have lax accounting for the extra $500K, or that the artists could have casually asked for another $500K of old bills to use as filler and the request would have been granted.
The Fed is extremely rigorous in tracking these things. It isn’t a couple guys in a room playing casually with millions of dollars. Even the retired bills are thoroughly monitored and tracked through their destruction.
Non uniform in what way? If all the money in the middle is jumbled up and 50% air that's still extremely misleading. And it's not far off the crumpled up newspaper the article threw in as a possibility.
The conclusion that something is off is still right in that case.
Or why does it even actually need to contain 1M anyway, just do your calculation for cube size, then cover the transparent faces. Filling the middle at all, nevermind completely and accurately, just seems pointless.
Goes against the whole premise of "ever wonder what a million dollars looks like?" They could have just created a million dollar bill and hung it on the wall
I mean the math given showing the size for an actual ~$1M cube is substantially smaller is pretty compelling. The author puts forward the explanation that there may be voids in the cube instead of an additional $500k, but that doesn't really address the problem that this isn't the right size for a $1M cube.
The Fed keeps rigorous track of every bill. They have a database with the serial number of every live bill. The money isn't valid until the serial is put into the database, and any time a bank gets a bill, they have to verify the serial number is in the database. And if it's not they have to turn it in for a replacement that is.
20 years ago before there were as many erosions of personal privacy and before I realized how important privacy was, I thought of a similar system to detect counterfeit money.
Scan it and upload the serial to a database. If that serial has been registered somewhere else, before a plane could possibly transport it there, flag both registers to inspect that bill.
If the serial has already been registered as counterfeit, refuse the currency.
If the serial was not issued by the US mint, refuse the currency.
This would have the adverse effect of flagging valid currency too, but this could be worked around. I think it would make counterfeit much harder and have very little technical cost, since reading the denom and serial is trivial.
The thing is that only a tiny amount of all money exists as physical bills. So they can track that all they want, it ain't going to make a dent in the total money supply :p
That’s actually the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, on 14th St. SW, which is indeed worth visiting. They print the paper bills (among other things). The U.S. Mint produces the coins. I think only the Philadelphia Mint still mints coins, but it’s also worth visiting.
Denver also mints coins for circulation (mint mark D) and San Francisco does rarely, but mostly does proof sets (legal tender, but generally kept by collectors). Apparently there’s also a newer mint at West Point which uses a W mint mark and also mints coins for circulation.
When you print money by the trillions, tracking every transaction becomes more important not less. I don't know about the exhibit, it is possible that this is not real money too.
Maybe just my biased brain, but the title made it sound like they were half a million under, not over. In some way, this is how 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles will never be exactly 1000 pieces. As long as there's at least 1000, I think most people are fine, especially as an art piece. And of course as mentioned, there's the possibility that there's filler inside.
It would've been much worse if it was under though.
25x40 is rarely used because non square piece give a lot more info about placement and a 25 X 40 rectangle is almost twice as wide as it is tall. It’s rarely the right kind of aspect ratio.
Yeah, most jigsaw puzzles do not have precisely the number of pieces advertised. Here's an amusing video (by the channel Stand-up Maths) that does a deep dive into it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXWvptwoCl8
TLDR if you don't have a half-hour: puzzles are usually cut with the pieces on grids, and not all aspect ratios are conducive to that with all piece counts. Like, you might want a 2:3 shaped puzzle with 500 pieces, and 18x28=504 is close enough.
Kind of off-topic, but I've always thought a good way to suss out what sort of background somebody comes from is to ask them to visualise $1million dollars.
People from a "working class" background tend to see a massive pile of money, more middle class, a smaller pile, upper class maybe a cheque or a small stack of $100 bills or a bank transfer.
It's maybe one of the weirdest parts of the JBR ransom note (getting really off-topic now), "$118,000 dollars be placed into an "adequately sized attaché" consisting of $100,000 in $100 dollar bills and $18,000 in $20 dollar bills."
That would take up a really small amount of space, but if you're never seen that amount of money you might not know that (especially in 1996, pre-internet)
Separate comment so you can separately downvote/flag me:
Why, OP, why? How much self-awareness does it really take to realize JBR is a non-standard acronym people won't recognize? It almost feels like a superpower that I take an extra half-second to think about what jargon the average person needs to have defined.
Reading the OP, it appears they were pretty much blurting out a semi-nonsensical stream of consciousness. That's my best guess as to why they didn't bother to define JBR, because in reality, they weren't writing for any other audience other than themselves.
Possibly, but I generally see it as a problem from pretty much everyone, especially specialists, speaking to people outside their domain, to be horribly miscalibrated about what jargon the layperson understands, or to just not give it any thought.
IDK, a strap of $100 bills is $10k, so $1M would be 100 of them. Seems sizable. Looks like a strap is about .43 inches tall, so that would make your $1M about 3 and a half feet high or more than a meter tall for the non-imperial afflicted amongst us.
There are additional stacks hidden by the aluminum framing. Everything is flush against the glass so there are a few more inches on each face not counted in the 102 figure.
I was curious and looked and yes, there are absolutely bills that seem to go into the framing. It's not a solid aluminum bar it looks L shaped in person.
I'm guessing that is an illusion due to refraction through thick (plexi)glass.
Otherwise, if the bills really are where they appear, then there would have to be some partial (cut) bills along the edges for everything to line up properly.
Listen, if the money is greater than the claim, another way to say the exact same thing, without even standing on your head, is that the the claim is less than the money!
The comment we're all arguing about only says "50% shortfall" and does not say which side of the equation is short. So the word in that context merely means discrepency.
Maybe they did actually have the wrong idea about the story, but what they wrote does not say one way or the other, so there is nothing to correct and everyone is just picking a meaning and acting like they actually said more than they said.
English can't fabricate a missing identifier any more than any other language. There are no context rules that apply in this case to derive it indirectly, such as figuring out that "it" refers to something that was previously explicitly identified for instance, or anything like that.
Shortfall means less than the expected amount. If the plaque says 1 million, you expect 1 million. If the box contains less than 1 million, that's a shortfall. However no one expects the plaque to say 1.55 Million even if that's what's actually in the box. A shortfall claim is an oxymoron - the claim is by definition the expected value, how can it ever be less than expected? In English we may say the claim was under, or low, but not short.
There are most certainly context rules that apply in this case which clearly indicate 50% shortfall to be referring to the money.
In english, a short claim is equivalent to a small claim.
The economist's answer would be to offer to buy the cube for $1.1M. Tell them the extra $100k will fund building another cube plus expenses with spare cash left over. If you're right, pass GO and collect the payout.
Seems silly at first but in retrospect isn't that surprising to construct from requirements:
1: we want a big cube
2: has to have a million dollars
3: should be stacked neatly.
Given the bills are so evenly arranged on the lower surface there's only so many squares you can produce with the bills like that. 8x19 or 6x17 . 6x17 is noted as close to 1 mill but they only remove 2 stacks from the 100 side. so now it's not a cube, you'd come under if you trimmed it down to a cube.
so stacked flat seems 8x19 is the smallest square you can make for one side for a cube of cash that fits mil. so they did that and just filled it up.
It might be hollow, there's certainly a void. There's some comments about the border but you can clearly see that the bills don't go behind the border so the corners are squared in, which means there's probably a weird void of some sort because it's not really a normal cube.
I wouldn't be surprised if the bills themselves are marked with specimen or something on the non-visible side. Maybe they're also artificially worn bills produced during bringup or testing.
Someone else had mentioned these were retired dollar bills (aka, otherwise headed to the incinerator) but I don't know the provenance of this information.
> “Hey so… we’re $550,400 over budget on the million-dollar cube project.”
The cube did not cost $1.5M+. These are decommissioned dollars diverted from the normal process. The Federal Reserve is responsible for destroying currency. These bills are worthless. The only expense here is building the walls of the cube.
I think I saw this cube back in the day, or one like it. I worked at a place called Coin Wrap and we handled sorting and wrapping money for banks, and also wrapped the Sacagawea coins when they came out. One of the trucks came through and had to offload this large cube of money they told us contained 1 million in dollar bills, so they could offload the pallets of coins behind it. I've told people about it but had not seen a picture or knew it was in the Chicago Fed building.
This felt like the most obvious explanation to me as well. Maybe the artist's vision for it was a solid cube of cash, but it ended up needing a structure inside to support the thing.
So many reasons this might be exactly $1,000,000 but not sum up on the outside.
That said, this is also something I would have spent way too much time overthinking, so I thoroughly enjoyed reading the blog post.
Artist should have been fired. If I'm being shown a stack of $1 million, it better be a stack of 1 million of they are gonna be talking with the fishes.
> What if it’s hollow? You can only see the outer stacks. For all we know, the middle is just air and crumpled-up old newspaper. A money shell. A decorative cube. A fiscal illusion. The world’s most expensive piñata (but don’t hit it, security is watching).
Instead of writing the counting tool he could have used the Multi-Point Tool in ImageJ [1] [2]. I used it just this morning for counting some embryos I collected.
It sounds like this may have been one of the pieces of software the author intentionally chose not to use:
> There are some clunky old Windows programs, niche scientific tools, and image analysis software that assumes you’re trying to count cells under a microscope...
I spend more time counting things than most people. I use the ‘Count’ tool in Bluebeam Revu (an architecture/construction pdf editor) when doing material takeoffs for construction estimating. You need to do a lot more than just count when doing a takeoff, so there really isn’t much use for a counting specific tool in my industry.
Bluebeam Revu can also do visual counts for specific symbols/images provided the drawings aren’t too busy, that is one use of AI I would like to see (automated takeoffs) so I don’t have to click thousands of light fixture symbols every year. One problem is that construction drawing are 2D and height information isn’t always present so measuring distance and accounting for rise and drop is difficult to automate, I use google maps street view frequently to gather height info (calibration is based off a standard commercial door at 80” x 36” or a CMU at 8” tall) if I don’t visit a site. Due to this and other factors, I think accurate construction estimating will be difficult to automate completely with LLMs, but the process will definitely be sped up by them.
I can't argue with the math, but intuitively that just seems really small? It means that you can lay down 166,000 $1 bills on the floor of a very small flat?
Sorry, yes, 41m-on-a-side cube, not 41m^2-sided cube. The outermost square-root in the expression takes the area of one side of the cube (which is the area of the dollars, divided by 6 to account for needing to cover the 6 sides of the cube) and pulls it down to the cube's length of one side.
Yeah, you said it correctly, but I'm not a native speaker and brainfarted "41m on a side" into "each side is 41 sqm". I thought "face", rather than "edge".
I can't help wondering how big a cube you'd need to fill it with 1 million $1 coins.
43x43 piles of 541 coins each make 1000309 coins with a pile height of 541*2mm = 1.082m,
while the width would be somewhat less than 43*26.5mm = 1.1395m with a hexagonal packing.
So just over 1m cubed, a little smaller than the bill version. But at 8100 kg, tons heavier.
That reminds when a corrupt bureaucrat or a high ranking military in Russia gets arrested there frequently an amount of cash found in the apartment/house equivalent to 1-3 cubic meters in $100 bills (and usually it is a mix of mostly dollars with some euros) .
I imagine that to have the cube displayed on its corner like that the center must contain some pretty solid structure that anchors the whole thing securely to the floor or else the 2000+ pounds of carefully balanced cash would present an even larger liability.
This is a cool tool. Did the same thing (manually, just counted and switched colors whenever I hit 100) when I vacuumed up like a thousand yellow jackets from inside our walls. Couldn’t believe it when I hit 500, would have never estimated so high.
Hrm, that app seems to be shit, measuring only by its licensing system.
But I wonder about an app that can count things automatically, plus maybe also work out counts of 3D shapes by counting visible things and making estimates about packing ratios. A sort of "how many M&Ms are in the jar calculator" app. That'd be neat (and would ruin a fun game).
I get that they're selling to industry, not consumers. They also seem to be offering some pretty strong guarantees regarding accuracy. Nevertheless that pricing is bananas. An uncountable number of bananas.
Counting is very time-consuming, important to get right, and easy to get wrong. I expect quite a few businesses are happy to pay that for fast, accurate counting.
The post specifically says there's not a tool for counting red dots on an image, and there absolutely are. From the side-counts, you still have to extrapolate to a volume, but a specific highlighted sub-problem is well addressed by apps.
> The post specifically says there's not a tool for counting red dots on an image
Oh really? Is that what it says? Let's take a look:
> All I wanted was a way to click on things in a photo and have the number go up.
Those are the requirements. That's what the app is supposed to do.
I don't see "a tool for counting red dots" anywhere. The closest thing is this passage:
> It's stupidly simple: upload an image, click to drop a dot, and it tells you how many you've placed[…] But somehow, nothing like it existed.
You linked to an app that places its own markers (by way of ML) and then gives you a count of those—not a count of the ones that you put down. That so obviously fails the requirements.
Pass in your image with red dots, and the red dots will be counted by the ML-counting thing just fine. It's a minor variation in approach to solving the problem, and that's OK: When confronted with a problem, people often jump to specific solutions too quickly, and miss out on better or more general approaches. This is quite pertinent in this specific case, as well - you can ask the ML-counting thing to count the rectangles instead of the dots, and perhaps save yourself all the clicking in the first place.
Look, there's no need to get upset. Take a breath. Calm down.
> This is quite pertinent in this specific case, as well - you can ask the ML-counting thing to count the rectangles instead of the dots, and perhaps save yourself all the clicking in the first place.
Are you just dead set on totally missing the point of what the author of this post is doing? You keep leaving comments that suggest you don't understand the requirements at all. Let's put that aside. Here's a dead simple question:
Have you successfully used the app to do the thing that you're saying that it will do when you try to use it?
A good friend+colleague uses that app for counting nests of migratory seabirds in drone imagery for population surveys. It's great. I work in acoustics, myself. :)
Since the rows counted were not uniform, why assume all 19 under each of them is? As such, it wouldn't have to be hollow, but doesn't have to be neatly packed in the center, either.
Hilarious and well written exercise, regardless. Kudos!
You need a cube that is a multiple of the width of a dollar on one side and a multiple of the height of a dollar on the other side. technically it needs to be a a multiple of the thickness of a stack of 100 dollars as well.
us dollar size:
Width: 6.14 inches (155.956 mm)
Height: 2.61 inches (66.294 mm)
Thick x100: 0.43 inches (10.922 mm)
How close over a million dollars can you make this cube?
The exhibit picked a cube ~50 inches. 8 wide = 49.1 inch 19 tall = 49.6 inch.
But this assumes that having a perfect "cube" of bills was the artistic vision.
Yeah this was my guess too, I haven’t done the maths but my guess was that $1M probably just doesn’t happen to tesselate nicely into a cube so perhaps they went up to a larger, more nicely cube shaped size and there might be filler in the middle?
In general, it's pretty easy to get the 8x or 19x correctly — these are the large dimensions. So really, you are only looking at being wrong on the 102, and off by two (100-104) is not such a big difference (1.52M-1.58M).
Once you realise that the error bars are small (and it was mostly intuitive for me, probably looking at counting up to a hundred, so a few percent off is not a big deal), you stop worrying about the uncertainty as much ;-)
Kind of off-topic, but I've always wondered. When you use a card to get cash in $20 bills from an ATM, does it record the serial# of every bill it pumps out to you?
Such scanners exist but most ATMs do not have them. Of course if you fill the ATM with a stack of fresh bills you know the serial numbers for, and you know how many bills were dispensed prior to a particular transaction, you should know which bills got dispensed during that transaction.
Of course the tracking of this information down to that level would be pretty pointless. The moment someone breaks a 20 the connection to the recorded transaction is lost, and there's no one who can prove you didn't break a 20.
> tracking of this information down to that level would be pretty pointless
Maybe pretty pointfull tracking shadow economy. When Bob sells moonlight stuff his clients will more often than not simply go to the ATM, withdraw the sum and hand it to him. Bob will then buy at shop with big bill. Shop owner will deposit bill at bank..
And how do you know which bill from the shop is Bob's? Or which hands the bill passed through before or after going through Bob? The only thing you'll be able to determine is that some of the money withdrawn from the local atms eventually gets spent at the local shops, which you could probably intuit.
You can actually estimate this pretty well with only your brain and basic math.
Example 1 in Guesstimation by Lawrence Weinstein and John Adams, would work for this problem. The problem is about estimating the height of all lottery tickets in a lottery. Another book called The art of Insight in Science and Engineering by Sanjoy Mahajan has this problem (1.3) but its with a suitcase filled with $100 bills.
This guy could have pulled the greatest heist in the history of mankind.
Steal the cube, take out $500K, leave $1 million inside (fluff it up a bit or put some Styrofoam in the center), then return the cube, saying it was a stunt to draw attention to climate change or similar and you intended to return it. Then they would count the dollars, you'd get a minor sentence (maybe)... Then you get to keep $500k.
"Hi yes, I'm Mr. Museum and although we called it the $1,000,000 cube it actually contained about ~$1.5m. This man has stolen $500,000. Send him to the gulags"
Haha, would love to see that play out in front of a jury.
Who will they believe? The guy who says that the $1 million cube contained $1 million or the ones who try to make the case that it actually contained $1.5 million, contradicting their own claim.
Imagine them opening up the cube and seeing the Styrofoam in the center... I'd be like; "Typical Fed behavior! Fractional reserve banking... Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is exactly the same thing they've been doing with your paychecks."
I think where the metaphor falls apart is the part where they bribe the jury into delivering a guilty verdict; offering them jobs at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, each earning $500k per year.
>It’s stupidly simple: upload an image, click to drop a dot, and it tells you how many you’ve placed. That’s it. But somehow, nothing like it existed.
A small related story.
I once was an intern on a bioscience laboratory that was working with maize. My very intern-y job was to count the number of white spots on the leaves of like ... thousands of plants.
Improvement # 1 (not by me but a colleage), we scanned the plants, on a regular flatbed scanner, they were small enough to fit in.
Improvement # 2 (this one was me), the plan was to automatically count all the spots with CV but it wasn't really working that well; it was back in 2012 and the algos were not that good, they still missed some and we needed to be as accurate as possible. I ended up doing a web app very similar to the one in the article, you just loaded an image and start tagging stuff and at the end it gave you a count for each type of spot you tagged ...
... then we spent weeks scanning and tagging plants full-time :'(.
Why in the world would you use KaTeX to write a number that is just being used as a number, not part of a mathematical formula? But, if you must, at least use some tricks to make the spacing work correctly: since TeX treats `,` as `mathpunct`, you need to use something like `\$1{,}000{,}000` (or change its catcode) to get something that renders as a plain old non-KaTeXed "$1,000,000" would.
Oh, that makes sense! I was so caught up on the article beginning that way that it didn't occur to me that there'd be formulas later on, and it makes sense to want the numbers to appear the same in and out of formulas. Thank you for fixing the spacing, and nice article!
> Although an instrument of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
Although an instrument of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."[11]
At the complete other end there is this art piece which should contain a total of $84,000 in Danish kroner and euros, but contains a grand total of $0:
Counting things is time consuming and error prone. Ask a casino. You can have 3 people count something and come to a different figure off by a few percent.
Seriously if someone says there's $1m in there, who is going to second guess? Thankfully this guy did.
Because they were spending more money on having their personnel tracking down these mistakes. /s
The real reason is that payment processors like visa have a large network which is both technically challenging to maintain and has a massive barrier to entry to replicate. There are competitors but these are typically for niche applications, some of which are operated by banks, but beating visa and mastercard at their own game is no small task.
In other words these businesses know that paying visa and getting paid late is worth it because they are losing well more than 5% to losses (bad accounting & theft)
NRF reports that total retail shrinkage in 2021 was 1.44% - from all sources.
> The survey found that the average shrink rate in 2021 was 1.44%, a slight decrease from the last two years but comparable to the five-year average of 1.5%
People, as a group, trust numbers. Individuals, often, do not.
Pick any industry which revolves around something, I assure you there is a child-industry dedicated to providing the technology and infrastructure to count the things.
Heck, accounting, as a general purpose, applies to every profession, profession, is at its core, focused on counting things.
Hopefully this doesn't come across as argumentative. Your comment caused me to reflect on how you're right, we trust so much when it comes to numbers people tell us. But at the same time, we don't as evidenced by the vast amount of industry we dedicate to counting all that we do, whatever it is.
accounting / auditing is a good example. I review public finances. Many public agencies don't pass audits. Even those that do, wouldn't pass the smell test.
An audit just means "it looks like you are recording things" but it doesn't mean "it looks like you are spending money wisely.".
Patrons see "passed audit" and assume the agency is run well.
Makes you wonder if all those pallets of cash we sent Iran really contained all the money we said it did. Also makes me wonder how you count money that arrives on pallets like that? Do you set up a warehouse full of money counters?
A quick look around says commercially available bill counters count around 1000 bills per minute. Low cost counters have batch sizes of around 200 bills. Larger capacity counters are available.
Assuming the process keeps a single counter running continuously, it would be 1000 minutes, not quite 17 hours of work to do a single pass counting with one counter. There's a maintenance interval though. Some of the counters will scan serial numbers, so you could probably confirm you saw 1 Million distinct serial numbers while scanning. Multiple counters in parallel would reduce the wall clock time, of course. And you might want to do multiple counts, sometimes bills stick.
You could also count the number of straps and take a random sample to count. While counting the straps, you'd probably notice any grossly miscounted straps. If any of the sampled straps are wrong, you would presumably increase the sample rate to confirm. Weighing groups of 10 straps is probably faster than counting, but I don't know how sensitive it would be (depends on how consistent weights of the strapping material is, as well as weight of circulated bills).
While doing work for hospitality optimization software, I had the fortune of seeing some of the cash management infrastructure at gaming trade shows.
I wish I remembered more specific details, but I at least assume similar levels of capacity for bill counting and counterfeit detection are available to nation states. Verifying the cash would be even easier and faster than you're describing.
<Cue Borat impression>My wife</end> works at a legit, long-established, high volume retail store. Some of the time she keeps books there. They just weigh money, it’s accurate enough for them.
2016: "The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash" -- We froze a bunch of their money in the 70s; Obama unfroze it.
On the other hand, due to the provenance of the cube, the whole thing would sell for a lot more than $1 million.
Jack Binion's sister, Becky Behnen, famously sold million-dollar display of one hundred $10,000 bills in '99 for (a rumored) $4 million to the currency dealer Jay Parrino.
(Supposedly) one of those $10,000 bills was posted on eBay for $160,000.
$10,000 notes carry a substantial premium for collectors.
I find it funny they still advertise having a display of a million dollars, but in boring modern notes. Didn't even bother to look for it even though I walked past the place like 15 times on a Vegas trip, and literally went into the building for a cheap breakfast.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing had a similar glass box filled with uncut sheets of $10 notes when I visited in 2016.
The dot counting tool is kind of neat, but I guess most people didn't need it because if they see a large enough pile of something, they assume it's roughly what they expected (as opposed to "does this bag of candy really contain 30 servings like it says on the package? Let me get a count!")
My bank had a little class dome full of shredded money - like the ones that cover a mantle clock? Tall, under a foot.
A million in hundred dollar bills is a stack four feet high. Puffy shredded bills? Either they were thousand dollar bills, or the sign was just a wild guess, and very wrong.
A box with one and a half million dollars in it does contain a million dollars. It just also contains another half million dollars.
Like if I had a box with an apple and pear in it, I could put up a little plaque saying “There is an apple in this box” and it would be a completely accurate statement
Had a laugh at those cheap rubber furniture corner guards that only cover 2 edges of each 3 edged corner. Somebody must have got whacked in the head so they decided to stick them on afterwards.
If you need a web app to mark/count things in images, search for "image annotation" tools. I know first hand of a tool that is around since 2009 and still maintained.
What's really crazy is even if it was real it wouldn't be enough to refund taxpayers for a single presidential golf weekend (428 times first term, 30+ this term so far)
I'd bet on "hollow." Either they overestimated how large the cube would have to be to contain that much, or just decided they wanted a bigger cube than they needed.
What is the point in making a display like this at all in the first place, but making it either under claimed or over filled?
Who gets anything out of giving people the wrong idea about what $1m would look like?
If you are commissioning the thing to be built, why might you want it to either contain more than $1m, or be hollow and larger than what $1m really is? What purpose does an incorrect display serve? A correct display already serves almost no purpose in the first place, now make it incorrect.
None of the reasons I can think of would seem to apply here:
Disinformation.
Advertizement.
Art, where the artists point was to make it wrong and never tell anyone.
Simple goof up? This one is at least plausible. Someone estimated wrong, got a local shop to build an expensive cube(1), well we got the cube we got, fill it and get the display up.
(1) That will have to be quite thick polycarbonate or glass, not cheap. In fact, that right there might expose that there is at least some kind of fakery inside, if the glass is not at least as thick as the aluminum frame, then it's not strong enough, neither is the frame for that matter if it's what it looks like. So if the glass and frame are as thin as they look, then there is some kind of internal skeleton.)
Maybe there is some other significance we've lost since it was built. Maybe the $1m was never the interesting point originally. Maybe instead the dimensions or maybe weight of the cube were the interrsting thing, and this is really something like "1000 gallons of $1 bills" and that just hsppens to come out to 1.55m.
nit: Technically, even if there is exactly $1M you need to account for the box price since they don't specify that it's $1M in cash but just say "what one million dollars looks like".
Probably has a tidy façade, with a jumble full of gaps in the middle.
Edit: Actually I reckon they deliberately oversized the container a bit so it's easier to pack the cash in. You don't want to build it too small! (Relative budget notwithstanding). Another design constraint it has to be a cube, and has to fit nicely to the dimensions of the banknotes on the front face (aspect ratio and size) without having a big gap on one side.
It is almost certain that none of these bills represent wasted money. The piece of paper and the money are not identically the same thing. The paper is a document that is made to represent the money. At some point, the document is made to cease to represent the money. The Federal Reserve routinely acquires and destroys old worn bills, replacing them with freshly printed ones. This, by the way, has little or nothing to do with "how much money exists".
But I DO know, the most of HN is probably autistic and mostly agree on an explanation that completely defies Occams Razor.
The truth imo...
Its mostly a million, fake, stuck to the sides, padding in the middle, with a few bills missing from the top for mementos from the last installer in the room. Every now and again some more bills are thrown in if people start asking too many questions.
I was nodding in modest agreement with @behnamoh's comment on self-aggrandizement, but your reply brought a huge smile to my face. And visiting his linked website dialed the mirth up to 11.
> "No-no-no, that won't do. The cube is too small! Its puny size doesn't convey the crushing might of the American dollar! Hm. Do we have bigger dollars?"
1 Million Swiss Francs in the highest denomination (1000) weighs just 1.14 kg and is a stack of bills around 10 cm high. That is currently also around 1,261,037 USD
I doubt this cost them 1.5M out of their real budget, lol. My guess is these are not legal tender in some way, e.g. worn-out bills that would otherwise be destroyed.
Using somat's estimate of 49" on a side, it would roughly weigh the same as 49^3/100 cu in of solid wood. Given a range of 0.01-0.03 lb/cu-in for pine, and choosing the midpoint: 23.5 lb.
Very portable.
(Yes, it's cotton not wood, but the weight of solid cotton is hard to find, and probably not much different.)
Cross-check: bills are apparently ~1g apiece. That predicts $1M in $100-bills is 20.8 lb. Very close.
Similarly, I always love it when small women smuggle suitcases full of gold in movies, when it would be heavy enough to break the handle off if it weren’t painted styrofoam.
Once more proof the fed cannot be trusted. They are a private (and very secretive) entity at the heart of the US govt, thus not democratically governed.
The exhibit rotates. It will have the same kind of structure shown at the bottom through the middle of it at the very least, and probably a sort of skeleton for stability.
In case you wondered, $1M in cash ($100 bills) weigh approximately 22 pounds (about 10 kilograms).
Last week I was watching that episode of Better Call Saul where he carries $7M throughout the desert for 36 hours, and realized his bags were supposed to get ripped 4 minutes into the process.
--
Calculation by Claude:
Here's the calculation:
A single US banknote weighs about 1 gram regardless of denomination.
> In case you wondered, $1M in cash ($100 bills) weigh approximately 15.4 pounds (about 10 kilograms).
Your answer is incorrect. You asked Claude to calculate $7M, which netted 154 pounds, but you then divided it by 10 instead of 7 to get the weight of $1M.
Further, it's quite irrelevant here, as the display involves $1 banknotes, not $100 bills. The correct answer, without the need for an LLM, is: 1 million bills times one gram = 1 million grams = 1,000 kg = 1 metric ton.
Not particularly. That whole cube could be supported by a 1/4" diameter steel pin. The actual support almost certainly has a double digit factor of safety.
From a 2014 reddit post[0]:
> This is actually not a million dollars in singles. It is over $1,000,000. The box was created with the wrong dimensions by the contractor, but they still decided to fill it, display it, and claim it is $1,000,000. > > Source: Tour Guide at the Chicago Fed
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2f9sp7/one_million_do...
This thread is very informative on your chances of carrying off a heist stealing this cube.
Conclusion: Low, unless you're willing to take only a fraction of the face value.
Thinking through it though - you might be able to get away with spending the cash overseas, where it will take some time indeed for the money to be under scrutiny by banks to see if the serial numbers are out of circulation. There's then problem of getting the money there without anyone noticing, then there's the problem of what kind of characters you're going to be defrauding overseas.
All told - probably a better idea is to use all that cleverness to make a 1.5 million dollars the good old fashioned way: Spending a few years saying, "Nothing from my end" on Zoom calls.
I literally just said "Nothing from my end" on a zoom call. Still waiting on my million dollars though so not sure how reliable this method is.
The point is that if you do the boring job and save for long enough, and you'll reap the benefits of compound disinterest.
I love how literally you took that
I think they just wanted to say compound disinterest
Saving? In this economy?
Once you realize that this task is massively parallelizable, you're all set!
Point me to these "nothing on my end" jobs and I will write software and make recordings that trigger the phrase at the right moment, lol
I definitely know people who do almost nothing (they mostly show up to meetings and don't talk), and get paid really well because they can tell stories decently about their impact, and nobody seemingly has the stomach to throw them under the bus. I get paid better than them for sure, but I'm also at risk of getting laid off because of the practical upshot of being a top contributor. I am sure I will eventually get laid off, and they will outlast me at this company.
The tech industry is insane. While my "Nothing from my end" joke was tongue-in-cheek, it's parodying a very real dynamic.
Takes longer for some than others. Depends on your job title.
I'd say a small (single digit) percentage of people are able to accumulate $1.5 million over "a few" (2-3) years of working, but maybe I'm out of touch.
Given you use dollars, I'll use US economics as the benchmark. Your estimate only applies to the 1%, according to https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom..., according to [0], the top 1% earners has a minimal gross income of $682,577 per year; deduct taxes, cost of living and other expenses, there's no way they'd save up $1.5 million over 2-3 years.
Yeah you're very much out of touch, what kind of income are you earning or is this more wishful thinking?
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
Maybe a tenth of a percent unless we’re pretty generous with “few”. Which I sometimes am! If I ate a few cookies it was probably more than two.
It's doable, but it took me closer to 20 years. I got to zero net assets in July 2001. Retired from paid work (mainly sw eng contracting) at the start of covid in April 2020.
I should say, at the start I wasn't married and had no dependents. Also, for large parts of those 20 years, I didn't need to own or use a car.
That sounds more like "a couple". Personally I think "a few" would be anywhere from 3-9, which is more reasonable, if still handily above the median national income (like 250k a year if you save and invest well).
Definitions are surprisingly varied. I see these words as being something to be cautious about.
For me:
couple(formal) = 2
couple(informal) = 2-3
few = 3-5
half-dozen = 6
[gap]
ten-or-so = 9-11
dozen(formal) = 12
dozen-ish(informal) = 11-14
And don't get me started on "this Friday" vs "next Friday"...
"this Friday" vs "next Friday" should be unambiguous except some people abuse "next Friday" and cause problems.
How about when a recipe tells you to let something soak / marinate / rise / whatever "overnight". When really should I start? When really does it end? Is 8am one day to 4pm the next day (32h) the same as 9pm one day to 7am the next day (10h)?
I think for a lot of things it doesn't matter, so either 10h or 32h are okay (eg. soaking beans, marinating meat). If it says overnight I assume the time doesn't really matter that much.
Unless you're marinating your meat with pineapple, in which case it can end badly...
The day I learned that the acidic feel of pineapples comes from it actually digesting you instead of the opposite is the day I stopped using them.
Yeah, I use pear to marinate thinly sliced beef (my variant of bulgogi). I wouldn't let that marinate overnight either. An hour or so is enough. Too much pear for too long and the meat becomes so soft it almost falls apart.
> The day I learned that the acidic feel of pineapples comes from it actually digesting you instead of the opposite is the day I stopped using them.
Wait, what?
News to me too. Pineapple contains an enzyme that breaks down proteins:
https://www.thespruceeats.com/flesh-eating-enzymes-of-pineap...
My wife and I just discovered that we have different beliefs about "this Friday" vs. "Next Friday". I never even knew there was another possibility, so it's cool to see this mentioned here so soon after.
"This Friday" is the one during the current week, provided it's currently earlier than Friday. If it's Saturday/Sunday already and I want to talk about the Friday that's only 5 days away I would say "this coming Friday" (or just "Friday").
"Next Friday" is always a week+ away. If it's Tuesday and I say "next Friday", I ALWAYS mean the day 10 days away.
If someone says "next Friday" to me and they mean the one in a few days I'll look at them like they're crazy.
This next Friday, I’ll be next to my girl Friday.
What if they say “Friday week”?
Native US English speaker here, and this is the first time I have ever heard of this. TIL
Every time I hear it, it befuddles me just like the first time. It seems like a syntax error or something. My mind literally reels, like the idea is a fish and I can nearly feel the fishing line drag but the syntax and grammar isn’t rigidly applied, and so I can’t increase the tension or the line will snap, as it isn’t rated for this hefty and impactful of an idea as when something occurs specifically. I don’t know if that fish story adds anything, but I realized that there was some potential for wordplay that helps explain how it feels perceptually to hear these English words in nonstandard order from someone to whom it is standard. It’s strange.
It's like saying "half ten" instead of "ten thirty". There's a missing word, it's "half past ten", it's "friday next week".
In Norwegian that means 9:30. It is indeed very common, that’s how we say every x:30. It’s «halfway to ten» or something.
How do I know the missing word isn’t [up]coming, as in “Friday (coming [up] (this)) week”? As opposed to next week, which would be “Friday (next) week” in this syntax.
For that matter, the missing word could be this, as in “Friday (this) week” versus “Friday (that (as in the next one after the one contrasted with via the word this) week”. I have no way to disambiguate this, so I ask something like “Friday after tomorrow” or “Friday the 13th” or something. It’s hard being me at times, I’ll admit.
I hear this in the US when people say "a couple things" instead of "a couple of things". The word "of" is missing!
In Dutch the literal translation is "half tien" which means 9:30 in Dutch. This can be quite confusing ;)
In Germany it‘s even more confusing. In the West people say „Viertel nach Neun“ and “Viertel vor Zehn” which is pretty much „quarter past nine“ and “quarter to ten”, while in Eastern Germany people say “Viertel Zehn” and “Dreiviertel Zehn” which rather means “quarter of ten” and “three quarters of ten”. Even though they are meaning exactly the same times.
My English-speaking father with German heritage said both “quarter to ten” for 9:45 and “quarter of ten” for 10:15. He’s the only person I’ve heard say “quarter of ten”. Now I know that could be from his German heritage even though he never learned German.
Reasonably commonly used in Commonwealth countries.
Next Friday is sometimes too ambiguous, you can never be sure you share the same definition with the other person. Is it the same as This Friday (the very next occurring Friday), or Friday Week (ie next week's Friday).
I always thought of "Friday week" as "Friday plus a week" rather than "next week's Friday".
yeah, that's a better way of expressing it.
I heard it used this way in Australia, and I’ve heard it now and then in British TV programs. Only have heard it among very old timers in isolated areas in the US a few times when I was very young previously.
Never seen or heard this in New Zealand from native speakers.
We must move in different circles then ;)
Maybe I should ask my kids...
My kiwi teenage daughter and her friend didn't really use it, but did hear it used occasionally.
Interestingly they both had different definitions of Next Friday though, and both thought there was only one way of defining it.
I’m Australian and I’ve heard this a lot
Likewise. I'm Australian and have used it regularly for a long time. My parents have always used it.
That always means "two Fridays from now" - so if it's Tuesday, then they mean next Friday.
I use "<day> week" in conversation, but I'd say it's falling out of favour. I mostly use it with my parents.
What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times? How can you know that they don’t from an isolated utterance? Can you know with reasonable certainty that the person saying it knows what you think they mean?
From context you might know if it seems like they know how to use the phrase, but I always struggle to understand these quirks, perhaps because I heard these terms as an adult and haven’t used them much myself, or been exposed to them and the context enough to immerse myself in the colloquial usage by diffusion.
This is close to weird constructions like “x is deceptively y” like “the dog is deceptively large” which, without already knowing the size of the dog, makes me feel like a dunce because I don’t know while not giving me enough specificity to know if the the largeness is what is deceptive or just the perception of the largeness. It’s a syntactical tarpit.
> I use "<day> week" in conversation, but I'd say it's falling out of favour. I mostly use it with my parents.
I am a native English (US) speaker, and I think it’s a British English thing perhaps, as I heard it all the time in Australia, along with other week-related terms like fortnight.
> What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times?
Well, I suppose they could, but then what if they meant Thursday?
“Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”. Its partner is “Friday coming”, which is “count forward until a Friday”.
> > What if the person saying that means “Friday this week” sometimes and “Friday next week” other times?
> Well, I suppose they could, but then what if they meant Thursday?
> “Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”. Its partner is “Friday coming”, which is “count forward until a Friday”.
That’s good that it’s unambiguous to you, as you happen to be correctly interpreting the meaning from the words as written, but I don’t read the context the same way, as in, your reading doesn’t always read as written, when I’m doing the reading. It comes naturally to you, it seems, but less so to me, if I can explain.
To me, “Friday coming/this coming Friday” is just as underspecified because it communicates explicitly ambiguously that which is definitively known due to unknown knowns and/or unknown unknowns: you don’t know if I know what day it is today or not, and on days I haven’t been outside yet, I may not know if it’s AM/PM or midnight or noon. I could think I know what day it is and be honestly mistaken, leading me to believe that the next/coming Friday is a day away, as in tomorrow, but miss that it’s already Friday today, making the listener think I mean a week from now, when I mean right now for events taking place on the night of the day in question.
I also think it’s ambiguous what “coming/next Friday” means, because it’s obvious that the one coming up this week is coming up, so it seems too on the nose to refer to it as such, which makes me think that it’s a week from now, but this time, they actually do mean the Friday a few days from now.
I think this discussion of "Friday week" has people talking at cross purposes, and there may not be any real disagreement. It's an idiom, and if you're part of a (sub-)culture that has this idiom, its meaning is unambiguous. But if it's unfamiliar to you, you can't be expected to deduce its meaning from first principles.
Someone upthread mentioned "half ten", which is similar: if you're familiar with the idiom, you know it unambiguously means half past ten, but if you're not, you can't be sure that it doesn't mean 9.30 (or, for the literalists among us, 5.00).
Anyone telling you that you're wrong for not understanding it, or that you should start using it even though those around you are unfamiliar with it, is being silly; but I don't think anyone here is doing that.
> is being silly; but I don't think anyone here is doing that.
I think it’s silly that English has these quirks, and it’s silly to engage with them as points of argument, which isn’t what I mean to do, but rather to show how my own thought process works, silly it may be. It’s okay to embrace silliness in the environment as long as it isn’t detracting from understanding. This thread is exploring the words, not arguing with each other or trying to convince the other, so it’s not at cross purposes to me. But I think I agree that there may be no disagreement?
Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the silly. ;)
Fair enough! I didn't mean to push against any exploration of this sort of thing; I think it's interesting too (and even if I didn't, that would be no reason to try to impose my feelings on others).
I think the main thing I was responding to was this --
> That’s good that it’s unambiguous to you, as you happen to be correctly interpreting the meaning from the words as written, but I don’t read the context the same way, as in, your reading doesn’t always read as written, when I’m doing the reading.
-- which I (perhaps wrongly) took to be arguing against, or slightly misunderstanding, the claim of the person you were responding to. I don't think they were claiming that the words as written are inherently unambiguous, and I don't think it's a question of reading the context; I think it's just an idiomatic phrase that has a fixed meaning for those who natively use it. It's a bit like a dialect word; it's only ambiguous in the sense that people who don't speak the dialect won't know how to interpret it.
(It could turn out that I'm factually wrong about this, and that there are different groups who use the phrase in mutually contradictory ways! But so far I've only seen a split between groups who use it to mean "the Friday after this coming Friday" and groups who don't use it at all.)
I didn’t interpret anything you said as prescriptive, but it did seem to be perhaps peremptory in a way where you were trying to adjudicate a supposed dispute that wasn’t actually occurring, but I appreciate your contributions as descriptive of how you interpreted the thread and your views on the term. I appreciated the nuanced interrogatory approach in a Socratic way and its lack of sophistry. I think you understand the situation, but some people struggle with how to respond to these phrasings more than others perhaps.
Interestingly, in the languages where do you say "half ten", it unambiguously means 9:30 not 10:30. For example, in German you would say halb zehn (or "half ten" / "half to ten"), which means 9:30.
> “Friday week” is surprisingly unambiguous. It always means “count forward from today until a Friday, then add a week”.
Well, no, the typical case would be that it means nothing at all and the other person thinks you're having a stroke. Zero potential meanings isn't actually better than two potential meanings.
You know what's really unambiguous? "Friday the 8th".
That's just a spicy way of saying "I am unfamiliar with this idiom". Nobody is saying you should unilaterally start using it in the US, or in any other context where nobody would understand you. They're saying that, for those who do have this idiom, it is unambiguous.
There's a little bit more to it than that. I am unfamiliar with the idiom, and the idiom does not appear to be grammatical English, suggesting that something has gone wrong rather than that the speaker is using a foreign vocabulary item. Most idioms don't look like word salad, but this one does.
"Friday week" would ordinarily mean a week characterized in some way by Friday, but of course there can be no such week. There could be a "Good Friday week".
Your original complaint was that the phrase is meaningless. To people who are familiar with it, it's obviously not meaningless! For those who are unfamiliar with it, I'd say the bafflingness is more feature than bug; you'll immediately know that you've encountered an unfamiliar phrase (or missed a word), rather than trying to piece it together logically and coming away with an illusion of understanding.
(Yeah, it would be even better if it just made sense transparently and unambiguously to all listeners. But that leaves us with a complaint about idioms in general, not this one in particular.)
> "Friday week" would ordinarily mean a week characterized in some way by Friday, but of course there can be no such week. There could be a "Good Friday week".
I think there was that one or maybe two times the Catholic Church changed the day or date? I don’t know much about it but that may have resulted in a week without a Friday, which would make the next one pretty good, when it happened.
I've been using Friday week type constructs for many decades .. never had an issue.
> You know what's really unambiguous? "Friday the 8th".
Sorry, of which month in which year under what calender?
> Sorry, of which month in which year under what calender?
Whichever could be a theoretical possibility for whatever you're describing the date of. In almost all cases, there will only be one choice. But in other cases, the speaker will provide the rest of the date.
I suspect if you are running off a different calendar than most people you interact with then you would be used to clarifying these things!
Exactly the point, requires clarification, doesn't stand on it's own, is hardly unambiguous.
Moreover most people are surrounded by by people using the same calendar and don't clarify, it's an issue for travellers and data reconciliation across boundaries.
That said, it's the month and year that are most lacking from a simple { Dayname, day of month } pairing.
Exactly. "Friday week" is completely clear - there is no ambiguity about which Friday you might mean, and your definition is 100% accurate.
If you're unfamiliar with the phrase then it's likely meaningless, but if you do know then there's no chance of getting it incorrect.
The second Friday from today
> The second Friday from today
What if it’s Friday where you are, but isn’t for me yet? Would that be a week from tomorrow or two weeks from tomorrow, for me or for you?
Luckily
(a) I generally don’t schedule things in the middle of the night
and
(b) it’s well understood amongst my social circles that if you’re for some reason trying to schedule something at the end of a party at 2am Friday then for basically all purposes it’s still Thursday
—-
But also once time zones are involved it’s better to just give a date, time and zone for clarity. That doesn’t mean people need to apply the same to their personal life and use it even where shorthand is unambiguous.
I'd go off the timezone of whoever made the statement, but honestly this is where it's better to simply clarify by saying "just checking, that's in 8 days, yeah?" or similar.
My wife and I have a disagreement about "the other day".
I use it to mean, a time up to two years ago. She uses it to mean up to no more than a month.
I think the disagreement is because I have a better memory - two years ago does not feel so distant to me. It is a silly and fun thing to argue about, leading to some agreements on terminology:
A while ago - 2- 10 years
Back in the day - 10+ years ago
And just to troll her, I boldly make the claim, "just now" means any time between now and a week ago.
Oh no, a whole new bunch of time-wimey words I hadn't even considered! :-)
I'm no authority but to me using "the other day" as a phrase is trying to impart a rough reference to a point in time.
Which means we're talking in "day" timeframes where week or month wouldn't be suitable. I would expect "the other day" to be within a week, but accept no more than a month.
Similarly "some months ago" = probably less than 6 months but definitely no more than a year.
The world is a wonderful place and the ways we humans can confuse communication seemingly knows no bounds. But I don't want a proscriptive definition for each little casual phrase as I think this flexibility in language is why it keeps changing and being alive!
I'd claim that the time ranges for these depend on what we're talking about.
"I had a sandwich a while ago" is wastly different from "they had a child a while ago".
"The other day" and "back in the day" might not differ as much but still...
https://oxtweekend.com/
Where does “several” fall on your spectrum?
Not that I'm any authority but I'd use "several" interchangeably with "few". The sibling comment suggestion of using it in the [gap] does make sense though...
Several is the gap
Took me an embarrassingly long time to realise that "several" didn't mean "about seven"
There was a contestant on a recent season of Survivor who, iirc, gave up on a challenge because the host said it would take "several hours" to finish. Later the contestant explained that "last I checked several means seven", and about an hour into the challenge he realized he wouldn't last for seven hours, so he quit.. (When the host said "several hours" I believe he meant about 4 hours)
This of course led to much ridicule and many memes in the fandom, and Survivor even titled the seventh episode of that season "Episode Several". In post-season interviews the contestant is still adamant that several means seven.
As a kid I always thought "few" was ~5 and "several" was ~7.
In most contexts that wouldn't be a terrible translation.
I like the definition of several as “more than two but fewer than many”
“How many times more (than two)?”
“Several..?”
don't forget:
several = 5-10
handful = 10-20
Personally, after having worked in a hardware store, I always confirm. "grab me a couple of those please" - "is two enough, or do you need a few extra?"
I'm one of those people for whom a couple is 3-5, but never 2. I would just say "two".
Handful is 5 unless you are talking about something that can physically fit in your hand ( in that case it’s however much can fit in your hand ).
Handful is more than "several" to me, and several tops out around 10, hence 10-20 being a handful.
Anything that's a word instead of a precise number implies a range to me (eg, few, handful, several).
Despite coming across like I was trying to correct you, I only meant to give my personal understanding of “handful”
I don’t know where I got my idea of handful, but it probably came from how high I can count using the fingers on one hand. So far that understanding seems to work for me when other people say it as long as I do what you said and treat it as an approximation.
On the “several” topic, I used to think it meant “about seven” because of the shared “sev” prefix, but it didn’t take long to realize several has a much bigger range than that.
This is what I love about language. "several" and "handful" have waaay different meanings to me.
In practice my immediate response for "several" would be to use it interchangeably with "few". 3-5.
But all these comments make me think that maybe it should fill my [gap] at "seven-ish". I mean, the "seve" bit does kinda lend itself.
[0] Tangentially, several is from 'Medieval Latin separalis "separable," ' as in '(as in went their several ways)' . So to link it with "seven" would be a weird thing to do but I imagine this kind of thing happens with a living language.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/several
As for "handful"... you and I are worlds apart on that one! :-P Hand has four fingers, five digits. So "handful" is 4-5 for me. But as other comments alluded, if the [thing] is a batch of small something (like sand) then it's simply how much you can grasp.
As I mentioned these words have surprisingly varied definitions between people! One of the wonders of a living language.
I think it depends on where you grow up.
Still not as amorphous as the word "now" and its various prefixes when it comes to South Africans and time.
a couple is always two. anything more is several, up to half a dozen
So if I said "hand me a couple of screws, would you?" - you'd give me exactly 2? If you know you want an exact number I would always use the exact number. I'd never say "give me a dozen screws", I'd just say "give me 12 screws". Named quantities are almost always a range rather than a definitive number as far as I'm concerned.
indeed I would hand you two. if you asked for double next time, surely you'd expect four
> a couple is 3-5, but never 2
For me it depends on the formality. For example, a married couple is never more than two people.
Ahh, that's different than referring to a count of things though - you can't hand a couple of married people to someone, for example. But "Hand me a couple of screws, would you?" - I'd pass them 3-4 screws, not 2.
I'd like a handful of bowling balls, please.
I mean, sure. That doesn't necessarily seem like a weird statement to me.
It's more than several, but still a manageable number.
Great! In that case I'll take two handfuls of bowling balls and several wheelbarrows. Maybe I should get a couple (4) more wheelbarrows to be safe, bring it down to under 4 balls per barrow
If you're trying to provoke a "wait, that's not what I meant" response with that sarcasm, you won't get it :)
Use depends on context, like all language, and deliberately choosing a situation that doesn't suit the language will obviously result in confusion.
I'm just really enjoying the absurd scenario we've created
“I’m going to be a few minutes late”
Riiight
Several or handful would be 7-11 in my book
https://xkcd.com/1070/
I would have thought a few meant 3 to 5, although I still agree that the number of people who could do it is small.
"couple" and "few" are debatable, but thanks to Survivor we know definitively that "several" means seven.
Couple is not really debatable - it has a definition that includes 2. Not 2 or 3, or any more than 2. Just 2.
What if you have a couple of couples? I think if it’s a couple, meaning two, that a couple couples could be two of however many the original couple is for the first couple, and the third one might couple with both members of the original couple, so I could see three as being a couple to a certain reading, though paradoxically four seems like one too many unless they are two couples of either one or a couple of kinds.
The Meriam-webster dictionary definition number 4 for couple is an indefinite small number: few.
I remember being confused as a kid what the difference is between a couple and a few. Turns out sometimes there is no difference.
https://xkcd.com/1070/
I can and have done it but only because im day trading. My software engineer colleagues make 1/3 of what I do in total comp.
That's why you stack up more than one at a time. Simulcast the “nothing on my end” to both your J1 and your J3.
Just add a few more clones running other companies and the spice will flow…
>> you might be able to get away with spending the cash overseas
Outside the US is probably the last place you'd want to pass those bills off. Besides the logistical problem of physically getting an enormous stack of $1 bills past customs... there's so much counterfeit US currency out there that the level of caution is extremely high. Just spent a couple weeks in Costa Rica, and USD is not accepted anywhere if it is even slightly torn, worn, or out of date by more than a few years. Maybe you could tip with it, but that's about it.
Very relevant Key and Peele sketch:
https://youtu.be/jgYYOUC10aM?si=YuTT_hR7y9t74mAQ
I wonder how much time it would take to feed all of those singles into laundromat and barcade quarter machines. ;D
> to see if the serial numbers are out of circulation.
Cash cannot be invalidated like this. It would ruin the value of all cash since you could no longer trust cash from anyone. Only damaged notes are taken out and replaced by the government.
Specifically invalidating serial numbers of cash used in a crime is a very common process.
This is something you see in movies. Cash is by nature not traceable, so invalidating notes after issue would make it impossible to trust any cash transaction.
It shouldn't be a problem spending $1 bills. Nobody scrutinizes them. It'll just take a while.
Man how expensive was that contractor when your art installation requires $1M in cash and all the labor to assemble it, but you can't just tell the contractor to do a new box?
The cash probably didn't cost the government anything. They can just use bills that are slated for replacement/removal from circulation.
for them it's just paper. how much does it cost to print a dollar bill. (would you even need to print it for this project)
yeah true only the top and bottom faces need real prints, these could all just be blank pieces of paper
> can't just tell the contractor to do a new box
They can. But if the delivered box meets the ordered specifications they will ask for extra compensation to redo it.
That plus cost of shipping back and forth.
That plus any possible time pressure around opening of the exhibit.
That plus the fact that the Fed can obtain bank notes for less than their face value. (If they are for example voided bank notes. But they can also just order prop money beyond the first layer if they want to keep their museum work and their official business separate. Which very well might be easier for organisational, accounting and security reasons.)
Plus nobody wants to admit that they screwed up the box order.
All these factors would point towards just stuffing the box with more “banknotes” and pretending that all is well.
They can just print more money.
It's almost as if the art piece is a commentary on the imagined order of money between humans.
I think Rai stones would be even better for that. One, because of their own history and usage, and two, because it is not the usual example everybody is already used to, showing that the concept is bigger and not bound to our modern society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
> The ownership of a large stone, which would be too difficult to move, was established by its history as recorded in oral tradition rather than by its location. Appending a transfer to the oral history of the stone thus effected a change of ownership.
> Some modern economists have viewed Rai stones as a form of money, and the stones are often used as a demonstration of the fact that the value of some forms of money can be assigned purely through a shared belief in said value.
...
> Rai stones were, and still are, used in rare important social transactions, such as marriage, inheritance, political deals, sign of an alliance, ransom of the battle dead, or, rarely, in exchange for food. Many are placed in front of meetinghouses, around village courts, or along pathways.
> Although the ownership of a particular stone might change, the stone itself is rarely moved due to its weight and risk of damage. Thus the physical location of a stone was often not significant: ownership was established by shared agreement and could be transferred even without physical access to the stone. Each large stone had an oral history that included the names of previous owners. In one instance, a large rai being transported by canoe and outrigger was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as any other stone.
They may be out of practice overclocking the physical presses now that they're used to typing all the zeros at a terminal.
Maybe they didn't realize it was wrong until they filled it 66% up.
"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
It's a baker's million?
a banker's million! new term
More like mortgage debtor's million
I can only upvote you one time, so I had to add this to my favorites. It’s so rich.
oof my googling skill so bad I didn't find this
Mine either. An LLM found it for me.
And I'm glad you didn't find it because that lead to a great post.
The latest use for AI in 2025: replacing obsolete and non-functional search engines like Google
Can we confidently say that top engineers have lost the battle with SEO spam ?
Or they just gave up ?
Or something else ?
With Google, at least, it was one division losing the battle with another division. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/417557.pdf
Searching some terms from this PDF (not in Google) brings up https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/, which has a clearer narrative.
Thanks for the links, very interesting!
engineers have nothing to do with it any more, is the entire issue.
uhhhh... isn't that the latest use for AI in like 2023?
Glad you didn't:)
Seems pretty on-brand for the Fed
As we say in my family: "close enough for government work!"
The phrase "good enough for government work" was actually not originally meant ironically. It was for Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration and it was an optimistic statement on the quality of the work.
Fed (and European EZB) are not government institutions.
> The box was created with the wrong dimensions by the contractor, but they still decided to fill it
This sort of implies that it was cheaper to just go with he extra cash needed than to do a cube with the right dimensions?
But then again it's the Fed, so they probably just printed more money. (Which also costs money, though?)
why print it? the illustration of the size of the cube is still valid if unprinted (if it where correct) and it makes it worthless to steal
(a) How do we know there isn't some hollow part inside the cube?
(b) Whovever hypothetically got that money would have 37% stolen by the government so they'd be left with about a million anyways. It's effectively a million.
People keep asking (a), but wouldn't that completely defeat the point of the visual representation? That seems like the least likely outcome to me.
If only he had Googled he could have saved himself all the trouble!
So who am I supposed to believe the personal blog or the reddit post?
You can toss a coin on which one to believe, since either way you'd believe the same thing...
Given that they are not contradicting, but supporting each other i would suggest to believe both. The blogpost says they counted the pile and it is more than a million dollar. The redit post says that a tour guide says it is more than a million dollar because the box was too big. That is the same information verified two different ways. Why do you feel the need to chose who you believe here?
Back in the late 70s my uncle was at an auto show in Chicago at the McCormick place. There was a VW filled with beer cans of some particular brand. You could submit your name and your guess of the number of cans of beer and whomever was closest to the actual count won the beer (but not the car). My uncle won.
How did he guess so well? He was there very early on and he noticed a stack of cardboard trays stacked up in the corner of the venue. He counted the number of trays, multiplied by 24, and submitted that number. :-)
EDIT: I forgot to mention he was a functional alcoholic who drank beer constantly. It is appropriate he won it, but I'm not sure if was good for him.
This was the plot of a Monk episode if I recall correctly, except jelly beans
back in the day at when I worked at a Seattle company there was a contest where a vase with an oblate spheroid shape was filled with M&Ms was left in the kitchen with some instructions for submitting guesses as to the total.
I created a 3D model of the vase in Blender, used some Python to get the interior area, and then found a figure for the average volume of M&Ms to get a count.
my guess was off by about half, but was very close to many of the other engineers' numbers, to the point where we asked them to recount. the recount revealed I was closest and it turns out they had used a method other than counting for the original number (they weighed them or something... it was way off).
> For all we know, the middle is just air and crumpled-up old newspaper.
I think this is the answer. I suspect the exhibit designers had a cool idea for a display, did a rough estimate of the area needed and then commissioned the exhibit builders to make the big metal-framed cube. Either they made an error in their calculation or the innate variability in the size of stacks of used bills threw it off. It's also possible the exhibit designer simply decided a bigger cube which filled the floor to ceiling space would be a better visual. Which would be unfortunate because, personally, the exhibit concept I'm more interested in is "$1M dollars in $100 bills fits in this area" not "Here's $1M in bills." The first concept is mildly interesting while the second is just a stunt.
Regardless of the reason it's off, I think it's most likely there's only $1M of bills in the cube. The folks responsible for collecting and destroying used bills tend to be exacting in their auditing for obvious reasons. So when the exhibit designers got $1M in used bills approved and released, that's exactly how much they got. It also stands to reason that they'd design the cube a little bigger than their calculated area requirement to ensure at least $1M would fit (along with some method of padding the interior) - although >50% seems excessive for a variability margin, so I still think it was an aesthetic choice or calculation error. Of course, one could do a practical replication to verify the area required with $10,000 in $1 bills.
Regardless, it's an interesting observation and a cool counting program to help verify.
It could be that they measured a stack of bills sitting on a table, then did the math to make a metal frame to contain $1,000,000. But they didn't account for stacks compressing under the weight of higher stacks, and it wouldn't look as nice if the top part of the cube was empty.
Still, it does seem like it would be cheaper to rebuild the case than to add $500k to it. Maybe it's easy for the Fed to acquire more cash as long as it's guaranteed not to be spent.
It's the cost of paper not the dollar value. Also only the outermost bills need be real the rest could just be paper, or voided bills or whatever. But accounting can cover it. It's not gold or pennies where the currency costs what it is worth to make
Coins don’t cost what they are worth to make.
It's only true for the smaller denominations, 1c and 5c for USD.
Other than that, coins are cheaper than bills on the long run, because they last longer. It would be cheaper for the US government to stop making $1 bills and have people use the $1 coins, but I guess old habits die hard.
I guess that's why we have €1 and €2 coins (1 EUR ≈ 1.18 USD).
Well that, and Germans need the 1 Euro coin to unlock their shopping trolley.
(Or at least they used to; when I visited back recently many supermarkets had free trolleys! Can you imagine my shock?)
A US quarter will work just fine in those trolleys that take 1/2 euro coins. I hang onto one for just that purpose because I won't accidentally spend it.
Unlocking trolleys with a coin is normal in Britain too. I'd never considered that this might be unusual.
Is this not a thing in other countries? How do they get people to return their trolleys to the bays?
> How do they get people to return their trolleys to the bays?
There is no external force compelling US shoppers to do so. This has led to the (in)famous "shopping cart theory" [0], first posited like this:
The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test as to whether a person is capable of self-governing.
To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct.
A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with the law and the force that stands behind it.
The shopping cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart_theory
It's funny that Germany (and other countries) solved what's a social problem in the US with a simple piece of technology.
It's not a thing in most US cities. Since there's no incentive for individual people to return their trolleys it ends up being someone's job to collect the carts.
It's not a thing in the US, I think.
And did Britain have this before the invasion of Aldi and Lidl?
Yeah, we've had it for at least 30 years, probably longer
There is an excellent recent "The Answer is Transaction Costs" podcast episode (The Price of Pennies: Make or Buy?) outlining a proposal to save money by buying back coins instead of making new ones.
https://taitc.buzzsprout.com/2186249/episodes/17383823-the-p...
Pennies and nickels cost more to make than they are worth.
People are quick to state this as if it's a slam dunk case for 'we shouldn't make them any more', but I don't understand the thinking there. An individual coin can be used many many times to facilitate many many transactions before it eventually falls out of circulation through loss or damage. The amount you should spend on making coins of a given denomination has nothing to do with what the total face value of those coins is, but needs to be traded off against the value to the economy of having those coins in circulation. If spending more money on producing higher quality coins enables them to remain in circulation twice as long, it might be worthwhile even if the cost exceeds the face value.
It's a different story if the material value of the metal in the coin exceeds its face value - at that point it makes sense to go to a bank, change money into pennies, then scrap them and sell the copper. That would be bad.
But the reason pennies are a bad deal isn't because of their manufacturing cost, it's because their handling costs exceed the value of incorporating them in a transaction. Should a store go to the trouble of keeping pennies available, counting them, storing them, transferring them to the bank? Or should they round up change to the nearest five cents and take a 4c hit on each transaction where you'd have been able to use pennies? If your average transaction value is over a hundred dollars or so, like most supermarkets, and you only handle cash on one sale in 50 say, if handling pennies in your cash-management operation takes more than a few thousandths of one percent of your budget, it's costing you too much.
> It's a different story if the material value of the metal in the coin exceeds its face value - at that point it makes sense to go to a bank, change money into pennies, then scrap them and sell the copper. That would be bad.
Well, that is highly illegal and not very profitable vs the amount of risk. You'd be better off doing almost any other crime.
In my countries a decade or so ago we had a copper coin for roughly 1c. People started hoarding and defacing the coins then selling it as copper scraps. It was so rampant that I think it would have been infeasible to punish eveyrone. So the Govt just discountinued it.
Stores are going to round amounts in their favor, not customers’. So they will make more money once the penny falls out of circulation.
Pennies do. (More, actually.)
What do you mean? The currency in there is spendable isn’t it?
What leads you to believe that?
I haven't been there but the plaque seen in the picture just says:
That does not say nor in my mind even implicate that these would be valid dollars. It just wants you to be able to "see" what a million would look like. For all we know they printed fake money for it that uses the right paper for thickness and such and the right face value print but is otherwise fake. It would still meet the stated description.I would hope they at least used real bills they just took out of circulation for whatever reason but there can't be any real expectation.
It's a "stunt" only anyway coz a million in $1 coins would look way different. As would a million in 20s or 100s.
Because that’s the entire appeal of the structure, the fact that it’s filled with a million dollars.
I don't think that's true.
The appeal of the structure is the belief that it's actually a million dollars ;)
But as many things in life, it's probably just a nice facade.
> Maybe it's easy for the Fed to acquire more cash as long as it's guaranteed not to be spent.
The Fed doesn't acquire cash, it creates it. USD banknotes are liabilities of the Fed, but that concept only makes sense when somebody other than itself owns them.
No. We have a double accounting system. For every $1 it creates, it has to create an equivalent liability.
And when something is budgeted for $1 Million, it is $1m nothing more nothing less
Not sure when exactly the Fed accounts for USD printed – i.e. only once distributed to somebody else, or as soon as they're printed and still owned by the Fed – but even in the latter case, asset and liability work out to exactly zero.
So this million USD might or might not have been accounted for, but it definitely does not need to be budgeted for.
So, in your mind, when the Federal Reserve prints a dollar bill - what's happening in accounting terms? I don't think your understanding of the way this works is consistent with the concept of money supply.
Not your parent but in my mind, when the Fed prints $1 million to replace old bills they take out of circulation and give then to people to stuff into a cube then in accounting terms basically nothing happens at all.
To be precise, the treasury prints the bills, not the federal reserve. The federal reserve balances what money is in circulation by selling or buying bonds. When they issue a bond, someone buys it, so money is removed from circulation. When they buy a bond, money is injected into circulation.
It’s the other way around. The treasury issues bonds; the Fed buys (or repos) them in exchange for newly issued USD.
Oh whoops, you're right!
For the Fed though that liability is just a line in a spreadsheet.
Yes the Fed creates an entry in the balance sheet by convention but it’s basically just a formality to the currency creator.
I'm not really familiar with accounting in English but is it really a liability in double-entry accounting? Wouldn't generating money basically be income? So if you sell $1000 worth of stuff, you credit the sales account for $1000 and debit your cash/bank account for $1000, and the account's basically a bottomless pit where you can draw as long as you're generating income.
> I'm not really familiar with accounting in English but is it really a liability in double-entry accounting?
Only if you're the central bank, but for them, it really is, yes. For everybody else, money held is an asset, since it's somebody else's (in this case, the central bank's) liability to them.
I’m certain there’s policy that allows for national mint to create non-spendable exemplars of currency in a way that does not count as cash.
Yes, but the liability account in the Fed's case is /dev/null, isn't it?
Does the USG not use quad entry?
I mean, that's a very corporate accounting way of looking at it. But countries are not corporations, or even banks, and the abstraction is so leaky it's pretty much never worth using.
Double entry accounting has properties that allow it to track the flow of money, not just its state (current balance), so it useful for countries as well as corporations.
Even for corporations and individuals it works that way. If you write a check to yourself, it represents both an asset and a liability whose effects on your equity exactly cancel out.
Most probably these are voided notes, they actually have zero value because they were taken out of circulation.
It costs about $.032 to produce a 1 dollar note, so an extra 500000 new bills would be about $16k.
It could be even cheaper if these were old bills than needed to be pulled out of circulation. In that case they'ed be paying money to dispose of them anyways.
Paper money in the UK used to be incinerated, if they used the heat to generate power, or even just heat water for the facility, then there would still possibly be some cost in not burning it ... but much though.
Not sure if they still burn the plastic money, would be nice to imagine they dissolve it in acid and use it to make more money (but they probably can't because of the dyes, at least).
> Maybe it's easy for the Fed to acquire more cash as long as it's guaranteed not to be spent.
Based on Fed policy since 2007, they may be happy to hand out cash especially if it's going to be spent.
"Money printer go brrr" and all that...
That ignores the other option which is it's not solid and they just filled the empty space with foam or a wooden box.
Which destroys what the exhibit is trying to show.
The exhibit only claims this is what a $1M cube would look like.
> I'm more interested in is "$1M dollars in $100 bills fits in this area"
Here's $1,000,000 in $50 notes at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Museum: https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/600x600/2817090_qnRbbX_q...
Reminds me of getting a 20c coin in change with a Kiwi* on the back. My younger self always felt like I had been shortchanged 5c.
* AUD 20c was an identical size and same embossed image of the Queen, but a platypus on the reverse.
The compression of the bills under their own weight might account for the excessive margin - a lone $100 bundle, even compressed by hand before measuring, probably takes up more vertical space than the ones in the cube.
But a bundle is a bundle
I think this is the most reasonable answer on the thread. As amusing as it is to see everyone come up with zany solutions, it is most likely something boring like this.
> "How do I know that's not a bunch of ones with a twenty wrapped around it?"
~ Vincent LaGuardia Gambini
What's a yout?
Rather than counting error it’s likely the ~1 ton weight of stacking bills like this would deform the lower sections and possibly stress the glass depending on thickness. So rather than random filler there may be internal structural bracing so the outside of the cube looks nice and neat.
Simplest way to double check is if top and bottom corners have the same bill density.
may be they started with a $1M and with time the bills weight compresses the bills, and they have periodically to add more to fill the newly forming emptiness. Kind of inflation.
> The folks responsible for collecting and destroying used bills tend to be exacting in their auditing for obvious reasons. So when the exhibit designers got $1M in used bills approved and released, that's exactly how much they got.
But who says that they didn't actually request $1.5M in used bills after doing the math of what it would take to make a cube. Or fill it up with $1M in used bills, and come back and make another request for $500k that also got approved...
Because going >50% over-budget isn't a good way to further anyone's career in exhibit design, engineering and construction.
I have a friend who works at a firm which specializes in engineering and constructing exhibits for museums and all kinds of public spaces. There's a whole industry ecosystem around doing this. They get brought in on contracts by design firms which specialize in permanent installation exhibits who get hired by the person responsible for exhibits at a museum or exhibit space. It's no different than most niche specialty industries. Even though it's comparatively small, there are still thousands of sites and hundreds of firms. People who do this specialize in it, develop long-term careers and have resumes they care about. Jobs for firms and people come by reputation and word of mouth. Delivering on time, on spec and on budget is crucial for survival. The facilities manager for this Fed building hired an exhibit space manager who developed a budget for this public tour project and then put it out to exhibit design firms for bids. The project was approved on a fixed budget and time frame. The overall budget the exhibit space manager submitted to the facilities manager certainly included the cost of the cash in the cube.
But the bigger reason no one was cavalier about just filling it up with $100 bills is that this exhibit is different because the exhibited artifact is of uniquely high-value (and unlike a Rembrandt, immediately spendable), so it probably had to have a security assessment and is very likely insured against loss (not just theft but fire/water damage etc). The cost of insuring and securing the exhibit was calculated before the budget was ever approved. Adding another 50% in cash would increase the insurance premium.
I reckon you're not very familiar with the world of government spending.
An engineer or artist that reliably find ways to go 50% over budget and generate contract extensions is a highly sought professional amongst vendors that specialize in the public sector.
In gov work contract extensions are almost guaranteed, provided your company also have the civic spirit of contributing to our democracy with health campaign donations.
It is the Fed though, does money actually "cost" anything for them? They're the ones who make the money!
Per this site: https://home.treasury.gov/services/currency-and-coins
> "U.S currency is produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and U.S. coins are produced by the U.S. Mint. Both organizations are bureaus of the U.S. Department of the Treasury."
But even if this exhibit was at a U.S. Mint site, your assumption doesn't account for how the real world works. The people involved in planning, creating and operating a public exhibit space like this on behalf of some museum, department or company are just regular employees who report to mid-level managers with careers in facilities management. I'm not an expert but if this was a U.S. Mint site, I'd guess that the bills on display would be technically 'retired' (or whatever term they have for bills that are removed from circulation). Since the Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental organization, I can't really guess if these bills are similarly retired or simply cash, the time-value of which this exhibit space is carrying on their balance sheet. Either way, based on the way the real world actually works, it's almost certain the cost of this cash is very precisely tracked and accounted for on an audited budget that some mid-level manager is responsible for balancing right alongside the payroll for ticket takers, security guards and janitorial.
If it's just diverting bills that were heading to be destroyed (not impossible looking at the end of the bills on the non strapped side they look pretty rough) they're not worth a million any more they're just scrap. If you were extra paranoid you could even partially destory the bills and leave only the outer edges needed for the display.
My wife works at the Fed, and I can confirm that 1) the Fed does decommission/retire bills and 2) that whole process is very tightly controlled. The retired bills are typically shredded, and if you go on a tour of a Fed bank, you can get little baggies of "Fed Shreds."
So it seems very likely to me that whatever money is in the cube is decommissioned.
Fun fact, people who work at the Fed just print their salary at the end of the month.
That'd be fun, but I am pretty sure they get it electronically into their bank account — as in, no money is ever made for their salaries, just like most white collar workers.
Demand deposits in bank accounts are also money.
As a side note: In some countries, central bank employees are the only individuals that can actually hold non-paper M0 (or MB?) money, since they get paid their salaries into a central bank account, which are otherwise only available to commercial banks. This used to be the case in Germany and Austria, but has been phased out at some point, as far as I remember.
But even if Fed employees just get paid in regular old M1 demand deposits, that's money nonetheless.
The Bank of England used to offer personal bank accounts to their employees, but they phased it out after 2015. Not sure if these accounts were exactly the same as those used for central banking though.
https://hrreview.co.uk/hr-news/strategy-news/bank-england-cl...
I am not disputing they are money, only that they can "just print their salaries".
While not money, and probably not even real, those numbers in a DB still keep my kids fed. Tasty tasty DB numbers.
...I actually think you're being too nice. The exhibit implies that this is how big a cube of a million dollars would be. You can use it to get a sense of how much a million is.
If it's 50% too big, that's a serious mistake! They should, like, take down the exhibit until it's fixed. You can't just make one of the bars on a graph taller because it looks more impressive, or your pen slipped, or whatever else. This thing is inaccurate and they should fix it.
I think it's very unlikely there's real money in it. Most likely it's "real-ish" bills taken early from the production line without any of the security features, if not outright prop money - it's not like someone can inspect the printing or security features through the glass anyway. There's little upside in using real money, and plenty of downside.
Let's say the cube gets damaged and needs to go for a repair or rebuild - real money would require emptying it under supervision and counting the bills, where as fake money can just be sent as-is to the contractor, and any visible shortfall can be made up with more fake money upon return if needed).
Those downsides don't seem that bad to me. If something needed repair, they can bring a contractor on site, and certainly the Fed has cameras and police to monitor.
(In line with some other commenters, I'm more inclined to believe it's bills they've taken out of circulation than "almost finished" ones -- security features are built in throughout the process, not just an extra step at the end.)
Cameras still need to be monitored which costs money. Plus sleight-of-hand and other tricks are a thing, so you'd probably still need to background-check any contractors and maintain a strict chain of custody over access to the cube and then recount and re-check to make sure none of the currency has been substituted by lookalike fakes. Police still costs money.
If there is no reasonable way for the public to notice, why not make everyone's life easier by using fake money? That would be easier and cheaper.
Leaks can be dealt with by the legal system (pay people decently and make them sign an NDA in exchange not to disclose the bills are fake) which is much easier than actually keeping track of 1M of currency.
I think those bills didn't go through decommissioning process for used bills. It's much easier to just keep $1M on passive cash balance forever. Yes, they lose about $5k/month on lost interest rate, but a bank can afford it.
$5k/month or $60k/year is roughly 6% of annual conformal interest rate — is there any bank that will provide that much return in USA today? (There are investment funds which usually do, but there are no guarantees there)
I used AFR [1] that are from 4% to 5%. One cannot give loans lower than that. Any mortgage is higher than that.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/applicable-federal-rates
These are bank notes so they are a liability of the fed. Them holding them doesn't mean they have more money, they just have less liability.
Yep. Imagine if they put those banknotes through decommissioning, but didn't actually destroy them.
Some day they would put it out (or get it stolen), and now there's unaccounted (counterfeit?) cash in circulation. Better to keep it real.
I'm not sure where the original guy got the idea that the bills are uniform in the interior. Seems just as likely that the visible faces of the cube are "display" with an interior backing cube (say out of thin plywood) inside which the balance of the funds are dumped, either in pretty stacks or just how they land.
Yeah, there's no way they piled the cash into a square on the floor and then measured it and then had the box made based on the measurements. They had the box made FIRST based on rough calculations, being sure to over-estimate it's size on purpose, knowing they can fill the interior with cardboard boxes as needed to space things out.
Considering they handle and transport a lot of money, it's safe to assume they don't meet to make back of the envelope estimations concerning weight and volume.
Yeah by "rough calculation" what I mean is that since the Fed knows the ratio of volume to bills, they might have intentionally made the box too big.
> personally, the exhibit concept I'm more interested in is "$1M dollars in $100 bills fits in this area" not "Here's $1M in bills." The first concept is mildly interesting while the second is just a stunt.
They have that maybe 50 feet away. It fits in a briefcase. Also, $1 million in $20s.
Museum: "Don't worry, no one will notice".
Calvin Liang: "Ackshually ..."
Fun fact: "area" denotes 2D. The 3D term is "volume".
It's probably hollow to make the display easier and more reliable.
It is hollow. But it wasn't originally. cough
Or, the cube was surplus?
What’s the point of disseminating the technical reasoning behind it?
I think it’s better served to use this as an analogy of how the federal government handles money.
They handle money by putting them in cubes of glass?
Non-snark: Because it's fun to theorize.
agreeed
Because we still care about assigning sensible priors to whatever we think is the truth? You can use this to "analogize" how the feds handle money, but if they were actually careful with the money but a bit misleading on the space $1m would take, that's a different and less egregious error. Ignoring the space of potential possible explanations to make your analogy stronger is just confirmation bias with additional steps.
I'm half serious. Yeah I see the point. But more important to me is the analogy.
I see. That is fair, no judgement.
Though I do sometimes feel the pervasive casual cynicism we have everywhere today sort of creates a self-reinforcing cycle as it preemptively erodes trust.
What some call cynicism is often just clarity. We live in a twilight world, where even the truth casts shadows
I could not disagree more. Clarity is easy if you remove all detail from the world. There's no surer way for me to be disinterested in a position than it be absolute.
The opposite of clarity is not self-doubt but curiosity. And unlike cynicism it's constructive because it's not afraid of being challenged.
I never said anything absolute. Read it again. The remark was that clarity is often mistaken for cynicism, which is often true given the lengths people delude themselves about many things. It's not absolute. I qualified it as "often," which makes it extremely reasonable.
See what happened there? A clear statement was made, but obscured because you mistook it for cynicism.
I sense some confusion, let me try to clarify:
The absolute I'm talking about in the GP comment, is in reference to the clarity you are referring to in the GGP. You don't actually provide any example of said clarity. And I didn't refer to anything you said directly as cynicism past the point in the chain where you state your preference towards analogizing a museum exhibit to an over-arching pattern about the Fed's handling of money. That to me is indeed casual cynicism, and it provides no clarity, only hand-wavy oversimplification with a defeatist sort of appeal.
Since you don't provide any other example of a statement that I would consider cynical, which in your view actually provides clarity, I'm having to use my own imagination as to what kind of "clarity confused for cynicism" you could possibly be referring to. Those are the statements I'm talking about in the GP comment. And I completely stand by what I said there.
I see what you mean.
Personally I'm a big fan of DotDotGoose [0]. Used by lots of people all over.
I discovered this when I had to test accuracy in a pose estimation model for a computer vision project involving crowds being counted by CCTV. Turns out in low-res imaging (even the best CCTV is a bit rubbish at long range due to wide angle lenses and so on), pose estimation models beat almost everything else for counting. Except... they're still not accurate.
I would spend hours going through hundreds of frames, counting people by hand, and then I'd compare with different pose models, and found they were always out, but they were out by the same amount.
Some models got confused by reflective surfaces, so would double count. Others would be out by ~20% every time for various environmental factors. The good thing about this is you could then easily show calibration. "OK, in that space, whatever the model says, half it, that's a better count", or "OK, in this image from this camera whatever the number the model says, increase/decrease it by 20%, and that'll be more accurate".
We ended up through human calibration being able to provide much more accurate "models" per camera than the models themselves.
It did mean counting hundreds of people per frame for hundreds of frames for dozens of cameras though... I had to abandon the trackpad for a mouse and just got settled in for a few days with DotDotGoose. Colleagues were surprised I had the patience for it. :-)
https://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/dotdotg...
I wonder if DotDotGoose was just training a counting model all along!?
It's funny how all the comments seem to assume the conclusion is correct. I think it is far more likely that it is exactly $1M (plus or minus a couple of percent margin of error), and that the packing isn't uniform. It seems extremely unlikely to me that they would fuck it up so bad as to have $500k more in the box than claimed.
I also think it’s funny that so many comments assume they would have lax accounting for the extra $500K, or that the artists could have casually asked for another $500K of old bills to use as filler and the request would have been granted.
The Fed is extremely rigorous in tracking these things. It isn’t a couple guys in a room playing casually with millions of dollars. Even the retired bills are thoroughly monitored and tracked through their destruction.
There was a danish artist that got a very large amount of cash to do a similar in spirit artwork.
He then named it “take the money and run” and showcased what amounted to an empty frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwor...
This is so unbelievably funny. Thank you for sharing!
wasn't he sued by the museum and made to pay it back?
Sort of. A third party paid it seems.
Non uniform in what way? If all the money in the middle is jumbled up and 50% air that's still extremely misleading. And it's not far off the crumpled up newspaper the article threw in as a possibility.
The conclusion that something is off is still right in that case.
See sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44437004
The only way to verify is open that sucker up and count.
They should send all of DOGE to work on this very important problem immediately. /s
Whatever happened to the audit of Fort Knox?
Or why does it even actually need to contain 1M anyway, just do your calculation for cube size, then cover the transparent faces. Filling the middle at all, nevermind completely and accurately, just seems pointless.
Goes against the whole premise of "ever wonder what a million dollars looks like?" They could have just created a million dollar bill and hung it on the wall
I mean the math given showing the size for an actual ~$1M cube is substantially smaller is pretty compelling. The author puts forward the explanation that there may be voids in the cube instead of an additional $500k, but that doesn't really address the problem that this isn't the right size for a $1M cube.
in that case you would have to assume they stacked the money first, measured, then build a box to fit it
[flagged]
The Fed keeps rigorous track of every bill. They have a database with the serial number of every live bill. The money isn't valid until the serial is put into the database, and any time a bank gets a bill, they have to verify the serial number is in the database. And if it's not they have to turn it in for a replacement that is.
20 years ago before there were as many erosions of personal privacy and before I realized how important privacy was, I thought of a similar system to detect counterfeit money.
Scan it and upload the serial to a database. If that serial has been registered somewhere else, before a plane could possibly transport it there, flag both registers to inspect that bill.
If the serial has already been registered as counterfeit, refuse the currency.
If the serial was not issued by the US mint, refuse the currency.
This would have the adverse effect of flagging valid currency too, but this could be worked around. I think it would make counterfeit much harder and have very little technical cost, since reading the denom and serial is trivial.
Same thing can be done to detect fake number plates.
The thing is that only a tiny amount of all money exists as physical bills. So they can track that all they want, it ain't going to make a dent in the total money supply :p
Is there anywhere I can find out more about this?
I learned it when I toured the Mint in Washington DC, but I suspect they have a web page somewhere.
That’s actually the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, on 14th St. SW, which is indeed worth visiting. They print the paper bills (among other things). The U.S. Mint produces the coins. I think only the Philadelphia Mint still mints coins, but it’s also worth visiting.
Denver also mints coins for circulation (mint mark D) and San Francisco does rarely, but mostly does proof sets (legal tender, but generally kept by collectors). Apparently there’s also a newer mint at West Point which uses a W mint mark and also mints coins for circulation.
When you print money by the trillions, tracking every transaction becomes more important not less. I don't know about the exhibit, it is possible that this is not real money too.
Maybe just my biased brain, but the title made it sound like they were half a million under, not over. In some way, this is how 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles will never be exactly 1000 pieces. As long as there's at least 1000, I think most people are fine, especially as an art piece. And of course as mentioned, there's the possibility that there's filler inside.
It would've been much worse if it was under though.
The ones that are 25 pieces x 40 pieces are really 1000 pieces. But some puzzles are 27x38 or other more square form factors.
25x40 is rarely used because non square piece give a lot more info about placement and a 25 X 40 rectangle is almost twice as wide as it is tall. It’s rarely the right kind of aspect ratio.
> In some way, this is how 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles will never be exactly 1000 pieces.
What??
Yeah, most jigsaw puzzles do not have precisely the number of pieces advertised. Here's an amusing video (by the channel Stand-up Maths) that does a deep dive into it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXWvptwoCl8
TLDR if you don't have a half-hour: puzzles are usually cut with the pieces on grids, and not all aspect ratios are conducive to that with all piece counts. Like, you might want a 2:3 shaped puzzle with 500 pieces, and 18x28=504 is close enough.
Kind of off-topic, but I've always thought a good way to suss out what sort of background somebody comes from is to ask them to visualise $1million dollars.
People from a "working class" background tend to see a massive pile of money, more middle class, a smaller pile, upper class maybe a cheque or a small stack of $100 bills or a bank transfer.
It's maybe one of the weirdest parts of the JBR ransom note (getting really off-topic now), "$118,000 dollars be placed into an "adequately sized attaché" consisting of $100,000 in $100 dollar bills and $18,000 in $20 dollar bills."
That would take up a really small amount of space, but if you're never seen that amount of money you might not know that (especially in 1996, pre-internet)
JBR = JonBenet Ramsey
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_JonBen...
Separate comment so you can separately downvote/flag me:
Why, OP, why? How much self-awareness does it really take to realize JBR is a non-standard acronym people won't recognize? It almost feels like a superpower that I take an extra half-second to think about what jargon the average person needs to have defined.
Reading the OP, it appears they were pretty much blurting out a semi-nonsensical stream of consciousness. That's my best guess as to why they didn't bother to define JBR, because in reality, they weren't writing for any other audience other than themselves.
Possibly, but I generally see it as a problem from pretty much everyone, especially specialists, speaking to people outside their domain, to be horribly miscalibrated about what jargon the layperson understands, or to just not give it any thought.
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2501/
So you don't need to explain it by any specific failing of the OP, it's common among the lucid as well.
That sums it up nicely lol
IDK, a strap of $100 bills is $10k, so $1M would be 100 of them. Seems sizable. Looks like a strap is about .43 inches tall, so that would make your $1M about 3 and a half feet high or more than a meter tall for the non-imperial afflicted amongst us.
Stacking it in a single sack is a bit silly though, it would fit in a small duffle bag or backpack.
What is the background of someone who visualizes Scrooge McDuck diving into a pool of doubloons?
German
There are additional stacks hidden by the aluminum framing. Everything is flush against the glass so there are a few more inches on each face not counted in the 102 figure.
So you are saying its even more incorrect than the article claims?
do you know that or just speculating? I couldn't figure it out at the museum.
I was curious and looked and yes, there are absolutely bills that seem to go into the framing. It's not a solid aluminum bar it looks L shaped in person.
That's not an answer to the problem - it just makes the discrepancy greater.
I'm guessing that is an illusion due to refraction through thick (plexi)glass.
Otherwise, if the bills really are where they appear, then there would have to be some partial (cut) bills along the edges for everything to line up properly.
so it's off by even more than a half mill?
That still wouldn't account for a 50% shortfall though?
It's not a shortfall.
The OP says it totals $1.5M ... and extra $0.5M
I wonder how many read the title, and assume it’s about being short. I certainly did.
I had the feeling it would be a shortfall but had enough doubt to read the article.
Is over by $500k, not short.
Doesn't this depend on the point of view?
Well, sure, things probably look different when you’re standing on your head.
Listen, if the money is greater than the claim, another way to say the exact same thing, without even standing on your head, is that the the claim is less than the money!
Yes, but is it as efficient?
The article talks about 50% extra, not a shortfall.
Then another way to say that is that the claim is short.
Not in english it isn't.
Don't be absurd.
The amount written on the plaque is short by .5m
The comment we're all arguing about only says "50% shortfall" and does not say which side of the equation is short. So the word in that context merely means discrepency.
Maybe they did actually have the wrong idea about the story, but what they wrote does not say one way or the other, so there is nothing to correct and everyone is just picking a meaning and acting like they actually said more than they said.
English can't fabricate a missing identifier any more than any other language. There are no context rules that apply in this case to derive it indirectly, such as figuring out that "it" refers to something that was previously explicitly identified for instance, or anything like that.
Shortfall means less than the expected amount. If the plaque says 1 million, you expect 1 million. If the box contains less than 1 million, that's a shortfall. However no one expects the plaque to say 1.55 Million even if that's what's actually in the box. A shortfall claim is an oxymoron - the claim is by definition the expected value, how can it ever be less than expected? In English we may say the claim was under, or low, but not short.
There are most certainly context rules that apply in this case which clearly indicate 50% shortfall to be referring to the money.
In english, a short claim is equivalent to a small claim.
The economist's answer would be to offer to buy the cube for $1.1M. Tell them the extra $100k will fund building another cube plus expenses with spare cash left over. If you're right, pass GO and collect the payout.
It’s obviously not really $1.5mm, if it had been, someone would have picked it up by now.
Except that whoever built the cube obviously knows how much money they put in. There is an answer out there.
Making 1.1 million into about 550 k? It is less by nearly 50 percent, not more.
The post claims that it has $1.5M inside.
No, making 1.1 million into nearly 1.5 million. It is more by nearly 50 percent, not less.
Seems silly at first but in retrospect isn't that surprising to construct from requirements:
1: we want a big cube
2: has to have a million dollars
3: should be stacked neatly.
Given the bills are so evenly arranged on the lower surface there's only so many squares you can produce with the bills like that. 8x19 or 6x17 . 6x17 is noted as close to 1 mill but they only remove 2 stacks from the 100 side. so now it's not a cube, you'd come under if you trimmed it down to a cube.
so stacked flat seems 8x19 is the smallest square you can make for one side for a cube of cash that fits mil. so they did that and just filled it up.
It might be hollow, there's certainly a void. There's some comments about the border but you can clearly see that the bills don't go behind the border so the corners are squared in, which means there's probably a weird void of some sort because it's not really a normal cube.
I wouldn't be surprised if the bills themselves are marked with specimen or something on the non-visible side. Maybe they're also artificially worn bills produced during bringup or testing.
I agree. The "money" probably has the shape and appearance of money, but isn't legal tender out of concern risk management and theft.
The cube is almost certainly hollow, to cut weight and cost.
It's the idea of what a cube of $1m would look like. It should at least fulfill that requirement faithfully.
Someone else had mentioned these were retired dollar bills (aka, otherwise headed to the incinerator) but I don't know the provenance of this information.
> “Hey so… we’re $550,400 over budget on the million-dollar cube project.”
The cube did not cost $1.5M+. These are decommissioned dollars diverted from the normal process. The Federal Reserve is responsible for destroying currency. These bills are worthless. The only expense here is building the walls of the cube.
Well, if it contains 1.5 million, it also contains 1 million.
I think I saw this cube back in the day, or one like it. I worked at a place called Coin Wrap and we handled sorting and wrapping money for banks, and also wrapped the Sacagawea coins when they came out. One of the trucks came through and had to offload this large cube of money they told us contained 1 million in dollar bills, so they could offload the pallets of coins behind it. I've told people about it but had not seen a picture or knew it was in the Chicago Fed building.
Do we truly know if the Middle is all dollar bills and not filler?
This felt like the most obvious explanation to me as well. Maybe the artist's vision for it was a solid cube of cash, but it ended up needing a structure inside to support the thing.
So many reasons this might be exactly $1,000,000 but not sum up on the outside.
That said, this is also something I would have spent way too much time overthinking, so I thoroughly enjoyed reading the blog post.
Artist should have been fired. If I'm being shown a stack of $1 million, it better be a stack of 1 million of they are gonna be talking with the fishes.
Agree, I loved the post, but I also wonder if there's more nuance to it that we're unaware of.
Not until Nicolas Cage gets involved.
We need to sneak a CT scanner, into the Fed...?
Are there any "external"/"outwards" CT scanners? It'd have to somehow measure reflected radiation, I presume.
there's only one way to find out
Hacker News heist plan initiated.
For scientific purposes only obviously.
We'll count it and give it back. Promise.
Did you read the article?
> What if it’s hollow? You can only see the outer stacks. For all we know, the middle is just air and crumpled-up old newspaper. A money shell. A decorative cube. A fiscal illusion. The world’s most expensive piñata (but don’t hit it, security is watching).
Instead of writing the counting tool he could have used the Multi-Point Tool in ImageJ [1] [2]. I used it just this morning for counting some embryos I collected.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhFNiPsVRoM
[2] https://fiji.sc/
>I used it just this morning for counting some embryos I collected
"Sentences that flashbang people not in biology"
It sounds like this may have been one of the pieces of software the author intentionally chose not to use:
> There are some clunky old Windows programs, niche scientific tools, and image analysis software that assumes you’re trying to count cells under a microscope...
I just use Inkscape to place dots on the objects and then select all to see the amount. Beware of off by one error! ;)
Being a web tool is significantly lower friction. I will definitely look into self hosting a version of this I can use in the future.
Here you go: https://ij.imjoy.io/
> All I wanted was a way to click on things in a photo and have the number go up.
> You’d think this would already exist, a browser based tool for counting things.
Just want to point out that these apps do exist, perhaps not browser based. For example:
https://www.countthis.ai/
I spend more time counting things than most people. I use the ‘Count’ tool in Bluebeam Revu (an architecture/construction pdf editor) when doing material takeoffs for construction estimating. You need to do a lot more than just count when doing a takeoff, so there really isn’t much use for a counting specific tool in my industry.
Bluebeam Revu can also do visual counts for specific symbols/images provided the drawings aren’t too busy, that is one use of AI I would like to see (automated takeoffs) so I don’t have to click thousands of light fixture symbols every year. One problem is that construction drawing are 2D and height information isn’t always present so measuring distance and accounting for rise and drop is difficult to automate, I use google maps street view frequently to gather height info (calibration is based off a standard commercial door at 80” x 36” or a CMU at 8” tall) if I don’t visit a site. Due to this and other factors, I think accurate construction estimating will be difficult to automate completely with LLMs, but the process will definitely be sped up by them.
Count Apps:
https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/dynamic-ventures-inc/id9...
Do they claim it's packed solid all the way through?
I assume there's a really big ink bomb in the center.
I assume that at least 51% of the non visible bill parts have been destroyed. Then you do not care if anyone tries some elaborate heist.
Or if the cube needs to go for maintenance or a rebuild. I very much doubt it's real currency with all the security features and stuff.
not explicitly, but the implication is strong. otherwise the cube would be almost any size
Just for fun, the maximum sized cube you could make with a single layer of them facing flat and then entirely hollow on the inside would be about 41 meters or so on a side. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%28%28area+of+a+uni...
I can't argue with the math, but intuitively that just seems really small? It means that you can lay down 166,000 $1 bills on the floor of a very small flat?
The square side would be 41 m meaning ~1600 square meters per face, if I read correctly. So quite a large flat.
Oh, the side? That makes sense, I thought 41 sqm.
Sorry, yes, 41m-on-a-side cube, not 41m^2-sided cube. The outermost square-root in the expression takes the area of one side of the cube (which is the area of the dollars, divided by 6 to account for needing to cover the 6 sides of the cube) and pulls it down to the cube's length of one side.
Yeah, you said it correctly, but I'm not a native speaker and brainfarted "41m on a side" into "each side is 41 sqm". I thought "face", rather than "edge".
41 meters is the height of a 13-story building.
A flat with very high ceilings?
Edit: even still 41x41 floorspace is a very large flat.
The cube is “almost any size” it’s literally overshooting by 50%
I'd like to see this or a similar follow up project memorialized onto a small plaque beside the exhibit.
The KLF burned a million pounds in 1994 (about $3million in today's money)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9SzDFGbsFI&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN...
I expected it to be 50% short because whoever assembled it swiped half of the cash assuming nobody would ever count. 50% over is hilarious.
I can't help wondering how big a cube you'd need to fill it with 1 million $1 coins.
43x43 piles of 541 coins each make 1000309 coins with a pile height of 541*2mm = 1.082m, while the width would be somewhat less than 43*26.5mm = 1.1395m with a hexagonal packing.
So just over 1m cubed, a little smaller than the bill version. But at 8100 kg, tons heavier.
Edit: Well, damn. I got about the same as you did and rechecked my math and got it wrong.
Anyway, the weight would be 8.1 metric tons.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/coins-and-medals/circulating-co...
This is what 8 million (Swiss) 5c pieces looks like: https://cdn.unitycms.io/images/BasDL2iBqV3BLXFiXIPDdm.jpg?op...
(A party put them in front of the parliament to launch a campaign for universal basic income)
I bet it’s not cash all the way through to make it look bigger
He did say he doesn't know if the center has cash inside... but a hollow core definitely defeats the display purpose!
Someone needs to call/email the museum and ask what is actually in there because it don't add up.
That reminds when a corrupt bureaucrat or a high ranking military in Russia gets arrested there frequently an amount of cash found in the apartment/house equivalent to 1-3 cubic meters in $100 bills (and usually it is a mix of mostly dollars with some euros) .
I don't think the cube is stacked as uniformly as the OP thinks.
Notice in this photo how the side of the cub right/side - the bills are not oriented in the same direction as on the other sides.
https://calvin.sh/blog/fed-lie/cube-side.jpg/
I count 8 stacks in that orientation, which is exactly as described in the article.
Something on this blog post is spiking my cpu to 100%. Any idea?
Edit: it seems to be that video embed
I imagine that to have the cube displayed on its corner like that the center must contain some pretty solid structure that anchors the whole thing securely to the floor or else the 2000+ pounds of carefully balanced cash would present an even larger liability.
This good article contains a photograph of a million quid nailed to a wall. Since burnt by scoundrels
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~johol/KLF/Money.html
> Bill, who lives near Aylesbury, said the reason for the request last Wednesday would be revealed in 23 years.
...well?
This is a cool tool. Did the same thing (manually, just counted and switched colors whenever I hit 100) when I vacuumed up like a thousand yellow jackets from inside our walls. Couldn’t believe it when I hit 500, would have never estimated so high.
Here's the go-to for counting stuff in pictures of lots of stuff: https://countthings.com/
This would probably be a hard case for it! But would be cool to see how well it works.
Hrm, that app seems to be shit, measuring only by its licensing system.
But I wonder about an app that can count things automatically, plus maybe also work out counts of 3D shapes by counting visible things and making estimates about packing ratios. A sort of "how many M&Ms are in the jar calculator" app. That'd be neat (and would ruin a fun game).
Uh... in-app purchases for $24 for a 24-hour license? $80 pay-per-count? The AI marketing images... Ugh.
I get that they're selling to industry, not consumers. They also seem to be offering some pretty strong guarantees regarding accuracy. Nevertheless that pricing is bananas. An uncountable number of bananas.
"If you are not getting 100% accuracy, contact us."
Ok, that's pretty a pretty good marketing line, I have to admit.
That's like some P.T. Barnum stuff, because how the heck would you know the count is off? That would imply you already have a way of counting.
"If your parachute fails, your next jump is free!"
You'd have a person check some of the counts from time to time, I imagine.
It's only €24 for a 24 hour period, and I'd pay that to know exactly how many bananas their pricing is!
Counting is very time-consuming, important to get right, and easy to get wrong. I expect quite a few businesses are happy to pay that for fast, accurate counting.
This is yet another link to an app that doesn't do what the author of the post actually specified.
The post specifically says there's not a tool for counting red dots on an image, and there absolutely are. From the side-counts, you still have to extrapolate to a volume, but a specific highlighted sub-problem is well addressed by apps.
> The post specifically says there's not a tool for counting red dots on an image
Oh really? Is that what it says? Let's take a look:
> All I wanted was a way to click on things in a photo and have the number go up.
Those are the requirements. That's what the app is supposed to do.
I don't see "a tool for counting red dots" anywhere. The closest thing is this passage:
> It's stupidly simple: upload an image, click to drop a dot, and it tells you how many you've placed[…] But somehow, nothing like it existed.
You linked to an app that places its own markers (by way of ML) and then gives you a count of those—not a count of the ones that you put down. That so obviously fails the requirements.
You seem... needlessly offended.
Pass in your image with red dots, and the red dots will be counted by the ML-counting thing just fine. It's a minor variation in approach to solving the problem, and that's OK: When confronted with a problem, people often jump to specific solutions too quickly, and miss out on better or more general approaches. This is quite pertinent in this specific case, as well - you can ask the ML-counting thing to count the rectangles instead of the dots, and perhaps save yourself all the clicking in the first place.
Look, there's no need to get upset. Take a breath. Calm down.
> This is quite pertinent in this specific case, as well - you can ask the ML-counting thing to count the rectangles instead of the dots, and perhaps save yourself all the clicking in the first place.
Are you just dead set on totally missing the point of what the author of this post is doing? You keep leaving comments that suggest you don't understand the requirements at all. Let's put that aside. Here's a dead simple question:
Have you successfully used the app to do the thing that you're saying that it will do when you try to use it?
A good friend+colleague uses that app for counting nests of migratory seabirds in drone imagery for population surveys. It's great. I work in acoustics, myself. :)
> Here's a dead simple question: Have you successfully used the app to do the thing that you're saying that it will do
Since the rows counted were not uniform, why assume all 19 under each of them is? As such, it wouldn't have to be hollow, but doesn't have to be neatly packed in the center, either.
Hilarious and well written exercise, regardless. Kudos!
Sort of defeats the purpose of visualizing $1M. I'd call this art project flawed in its execution, at best.
Ish? Look up the optimum packing of squares. :D
You need a cube that is a multiple of the width of a dollar on one side and a multiple of the height of a dollar on the other side. technically it needs to be a a multiple of the thickness of a stack of 100 dollars as well.
us dollar size: Width: 6.14 inches (155.956 mm) Height: 2.61 inches (66.294 mm) Thick x100: 0.43 inches (10.922 mm)
How close over a million dollars can you make this cube?
The exhibit picked a cube ~50 inches. 8 wide = 49.1 inch 19 tall = 49.6 inch.
But this assumes that having a perfect "cube" of bills was the artistic vision.
Yeah this was my guess too, I haven’t done the maths but my guess was that $1M probably just doesn’t happen to tesselate nicely into a cube so perhaps they went up to a larger, more nicely cube shaped size and there might be filler in the middle?
I counted and got the exact same numbers from the first photo in the article: 8x19x102. No helper software needed, on a small phone screen.
Though having an app handy might make sense sometimes.
it's the uncertainty that kills me, I'm never sure if i've missed anything/double counted something
In general, it's pretty easy to get the 8x or 19x correctly — these are the large dimensions. So really, you are only looking at being wrong on the 102, and off by two (100-104) is not such a big difference (1.52M-1.58M).
Once you realise that the error bars are small (and it was mostly intuitive for me, probably looking at counting up to a hundred, so a few percent off is not a big deal), you stop worrying about the uncertainty as much ;-)
Kind of off-topic, but I've always wondered. When you use a card to get cash in $20 bills from an ATM, does it record the serial# of every bill it pumps out to you?
Such scanners exist but most ATMs do not have them. Of course if you fill the ATM with a stack of fresh bills you know the serial numbers for, and you know how many bills were dispensed prior to a particular transaction, you should know which bills got dispensed during that transaction.
Of course the tracking of this information down to that level would be pretty pointless. The moment someone breaks a 20 the connection to the recorded transaction is lost, and there's no one who can prove you didn't break a 20.
> tracking of this information down to that level would be pretty pointless
Maybe pretty pointfull tracking shadow economy. When Bob sells moonlight stuff his clients will more often than not simply go to the ATM, withdraw the sum and hand it to him. Bob will then buy at shop with big bill. Shop owner will deposit bill at bank..
And how do you know which bill from the shop is Bob's? Or which hands the bill passed through before or after going through Bob? The only thing you'll be able to determine is that some of the money withdrawn from the local atms eventually gets spent at the local shops, which you could probably intuit.
The approach seems overkill. You'd just have to count bills for a length of 5cm (density) and then some multiplication for the volume.
And you're charging $3 to export some dots on top of an image from a basic app that probably takes like 1 hour to make... Ugh, so lame.
I thought it was an AI object counting app, the kind that made headlines 8 years back. Nope, completely manual.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xz.camera.obje...
You can actually estimate this pretty well with only your brain and basic math. Example 1 in Guesstimation by Lawrence Weinstein and John Adams, would work for this problem. The problem is about estimating the height of all lottery tickets in a lottery. Another book called The art of Insight in Science and Engineering by Sanjoy Mahajan has this problem (1.3) but its with a suitcase filled with $100 bills.
This guy could have pulled the greatest heist in the history of mankind. Steal the cube, take out $500K, leave $1 million inside (fluff it up a bit or put some Styrofoam in the center), then return the cube, saying it was a stunt to draw attention to climate change or similar and you intended to return it. Then they would count the dollars, you'd get a minor sentence (maybe)... Then you get to keep $500k.
"Hi yes, I'm Mr. Museum and although we called it the $1,000,000 cube it actually contained about ~$1.5m. This man has stolen $500,000. Send him to the gulags"
Haha, would love to see that play out in front of a jury. Who will they believe? The guy who says that the $1 million cube contained $1 million or the ones who try to make the case that it actually contained $1.5 million, contradicting their own claim.
Imagine them opening up the cube and seeing the Styrofoam in the center... I'd be like; "Typical Fed behavior! Fractional reserve banking... Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is exactly the same thing they've been doing with your paychecks."
I think where the metaphor falls apart is the part where they bribe the jury into delivering a guilty verdict; offering them jobs at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, each earning $500k per year.
Hey, this is great.
>It’s stupidly simple: upload an image, click to drop a dot, and it tells you how many you’ve placed. That’s it. But somehow, nothing like it existed.
A small related story.
I once was an intern on a bioscience laboratory that was working with maize. My very intern-y job was to count the number of white spots on the leaves of like ... thousands of plants.
Improvement # 1 (not by me but a colleage), we scanned the plants, on a regular flatbed scanner, they were small enough to fit in.
Improvement # 2 (this one was me), the plan was to automatically count all the spots with CV but it wasn't really working that well; it was back in 2012 and the algos were not that good, they still missed some and we needed to be as accurate as possible. I ended up doing a web app very similar to the one in the article, you just loaded an image and start tagging stuff and at the end it gave you a count for each type of spot you tagged ...
... then we spent weeks scanning and tagging plants full-time :'(.
Why in the world would you use KaTeX to write a number that is just being used as a number, not part of a mathematical formula? But, if you must, at least use some tricks to make the spacing work correctly: since TeX treats `,` as `mathpunct`, you need to use something like `\$1{,}000{,}000` (or change its catcode) to get something that renders as a plain old non-KaTeXed "$1,000,000" would.
thanks for the tip! I just wanted all the numbers to look the same
Oh, that makes sense! I was so caught up on the article beginning that way that it didn't occur to me that there'd be formulas later on, and it makes sense to want the numbers to appear the same in and out of formulas. Thank you for fixing the spacing, and nice article!
Meanwhile I'm in a debate about the effectiveness/competence of government workers on another post.
I realize the fed is not technically a government agency.
I do not understand the claim the Fed is not a government agency?
> Although an instrument of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
They're an IA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
The for-profit ones (Amtrak, USPS, etc.) are called SOEs.
The loan-related ones (Freddie Mae) are called GSEs.
IA - Independent Agency
Thank you. While abbreviations are handy for those in the know, it's so helpful for general readers if one takes a moment to spell things out.
Respectfully, there's a Wikipedia link.
Absolutely. And thank you for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
Although an instrument of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."[11]
The Federal Reserve is an independent bank. An important detail the current US administration does not like.
It's "independent" of the Government in the way that Congress could just legislate them to not be independent anymore tomorrow if they felt like it...
At the complete other end there is this art piece which should contain a total of $84,000 in Danish kroner and euros, but contains a grand total of $0:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jens-haaning-take-the-money-and...
counting things are a huge intellectual blind spot. For some reason, when people hear a figure, they accept it as gospel.
sums, averages, population, budgets, spending, rates.
Counting things is time consuming and error prone. Ask a casino. You can have 3 people count something and come to a different figure off by a few percent.
Seriously if someone says there's $1m in there, who is going to second guess? Thankfully this guy did.
> Ask a casino. You can have 3 people count something and come to a different figure off by a few percent.
That seems a wildly unlikely idea: Despite having three people checking sums, their daily profits have a few percent unknown variability in them.
Banks of old would famously make their tellers stay late to track down rather trivial discrepencies, probably as a deterrent to carelessness.
Cite?
why do you think businesses willingly pay visa 3-5%? *and get paid a month in arears ? * and take on more tax liability
Because they were spending more money on having their personnel tracking down these mistakes. /s
The real reason is that payment processors like visa have a large network which is both technically challenging to maintain and has a massive barrier to entry to replicate. There are competitors but these are typically for niche applications, some of which are operated by banks, but beating visa and mastercard at their own game is no small task.
You're not considering cash losses.
In other words these businesses know that paying visa and getting paid late is worth it because they are losing well more than 5% to losses (bad accounting & theft)
Tell me you've never worked as a cashier ...
NRF reports that total retail shrinkage in 2021 was 1.44% - from all sources.
> The survey found that the average shrink rate in 2021 was 1.44%, a slight decrease from the last two years but comparable to the five-year average of 1.5%
Apparently the most recent survey was 1.66%..
https://invue.com/resource-center/blog/6-retail-shrinkage-st...
I call bullshit on that. Show me the evidence.
it's self evident context boy
If it's self evident it should be very easy to provide evidence of its truth, so do so.
go outside dude
People, as a group, trust numbers. Individuals, often, do not.
Pick any industry which revolves around something, I assure you there is a child-industry dedicated to providing the technology and infrastructure to count the things.
Heck, accounting, as a general purpose, applies to every profession, profession, is at its core, focused on counting things.
Hopefully this doesn't come across as argumentative. Your comment caused me to reflect on how you're right, we trust so much when it comes to numbers people tell us. But at the same time, we don't as evidenced by the vast amount of industry we dedicate to counting all that we do, whatever it is.
accounting / auditing is a good example. I review public finances. Many public agencies don't pass audits. Even those that do, wouldn't pass the smell test.
An audit just means "it looks like you are recording things" but it doesn't mean "it looks like you are spending money wisely.".
Patrons see "passed audit" and assume the agency is run well.
Makes you wonder if all those pallets of cash we sent Iran really contained all the money we said it did. Also makes me wonder how you count money that arrives on pallets like that? Do you set up a warehouse full of money counters?
A quick look around says commercially available bill counters count around 1000 bills per minute. Low cost counters have batch sizes of around 200 bills. Larger capacity counters are available.
Assuming the process keeps a single counter running continuously, it would be 1000 minutes, not quite 17 hours of work to do a single pass counting with one counter. There's a maintenance interval though. Some of the counters will scan serial numbers, so you could probably confirm you saw 1 Million distinct serial numbers while scanning. Multiple counters in parallel would reduce the wall clock time, of course. And you might want to do multiple counts, sometimes bills stick.
You could also count the number of straps and take a random sample to count. While counting the straps, you'd probably notice any grossly miscounted straps. If any of the sampled straps are wrong, you would presumably increase the sample rate to confirm. Weighing groups of 10 straps is probably faster than counting, but I don't know how sensitive it would be (depends on how consistent weights of the strapping material is, as well as weight of circulated bills).
While doing work for hospitality optimization software, I had the fortune of seeing some of the cash management infrastructure at gaming trade shows.
I wish I remembered more specific details, but I at least assume similar levels of capacity for bill counting and counterfeit detection are available to nation states. Verifying the cash would be even easier and faster than you're describing.
<Cue Borat impression>My wife</end> works at a legit, long-established, high volume retail store. Some of the time she keeps books there. They just weigh money, it’s accurate enough for them.
Iraq, and no. Almost certainly the biggest undetected heist in history.
2016: "The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash" -- We froze a bunch of their money in the 70s; Obama unfroze it.
...as part of the Iran nuclear deal that Trump reversed for no reason.
On the other hand, due to the provenance of the cube, the whole thing would sell for a lot more than $1 million.
Jack Binion's sister, Becky Behnen, famously sold million-dollar display of one hundred $10,000 bills in '99 for (a rumored) $4 million to the currency dealer Jay Parrino.
(Supposedly) one of those $10,000 bills was posted on eBay for $160,000.
$10,000 notes carry a substantial premium for collectors.
I find it funny they still advertise having a display of a million dollars, but in boring modern notes. Didn't even bother to look for it even though I walked past the place like 15 times on a Vegas trip, and literally went into the building for a cheap breakfast.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing had a similar glass box filled with uncut sheets of $10 notes when I visited in 2016.
I thought, i've seen GPT nail estimations like this, what could go wrong?
4o: that's $25.7 million
Is the idea of the exhibit that the cube is empty other than the outside edges?
Mr beast routinely has a million dollars as a prop and it's significantly smaller than this, and cubed values go up FAST
Mr Beast probably doesn't use $1 bills.
The dot counting tool is kind of neat, but I guess most people didn't need it because if they see a large enough pile of something, they assume it's roughly what they expected (as opposed to "does this bag of candy really contain 30 servings like it says on the package? Let me get a count!")
My bank had a little class dome full of shredded money - like the ones that cover a mantle clock? Tall, under a foot. A million in hundred dollar bills is a stack four feet high. Puffy shredded bills? Either they were thousand dollar bills, or the sign was just a wild guess, and very wrong.
A box with one and a half million dollars in it does contain a million dollars. It just also contains another half million dollars.
Like if I had a box with an apple and pear in it, I could put up a little plaque saying “There is an apple in this box” and it would be a completely accurate statement
They’re using US Treasury accounting standards. Either that or inflation is a $!+(@.
Had a laugh at those cheap rubber furniture corner guards that only cover 2 edges of each 3 edged corner. Somebody must have got whacked in the head so they decided to stick them on afterwards.
The bills look well used, I assume they were going to be retired anyway.
I bring this up because the article and many of the comments here act like this "cost" the Fed $1.5 million to make the cube.
If you need a web app to mark/count things in images, search for "image annotation" tools. I know first hand of a tool that is around since 2009 and still maintained.
What's really crazy is even if it was real it wouldn't be enough to refund taxpayers for a single presidential golf weekend (428 times first term, 30+ this term so far)
I'd bet on "hollow." Either they overestimated how large the cube would have to be to contain that much, or just decided they wanted a bigger cube than they needed.
If the cube contains 1.5x more bills than it should (50% more volume), then the correct scaling of the cube should have been (2/3)^(1/3) = 87%
What is the point in making a display like this at all in the first place, but making it either under claimed or over filled?
Who gets anything out of giving people the wrong idea about what $1m would look like?
If you are commissioning the thing to be built, why might you want it to either contain more than $1m, or be hollow and larger than what $1m really is? What purpose does an incorrect display serve? A correct display already serves almost no purpose in the first place, now make it incorrect.
None of the reasons I can think of would seem to apply here:
Disinformation.
Advertizement.
Art, where the artists point was to make it wrong and never tell anyone.
Simple goof up? This one is at least plausible. Someone estimated wrong, got a local shop to build an expensive cube(1), well we got the cube we got, fill it and get the display up.
(1) That will have to be quite thick polycarbonate or glass, not cheap. In fact, that right there might expose that there is at least some kind of fakery inside, if the glass is not at least as thick as the aluminum frame, then it's not strong enough, neither is the frame for that matter if it's what it looks like. So if the glass and frame are as thin as they look, then there is some kind of internal skeleton.)
Maybe there is some other significance we've lost since it was built. Maybe the $1m was never the interesting point originally. Maybe instead the dimensions or maybe weight of the cube were the interrsting thing, and this is really something like "1000 gallons of $1 bills" and that just hsppens to come out to 1.55m.
artists cant do math
[dead]
This right here is my favourite flavour of the Web.
I think I have the real explanation: Mint to Contractor: "Those dimensions were supposed to be in yards, not meters."
We don't know what kinda stuff is stuffed in the center — maybe some useless stuff that saves them Feds $500K!
Is there any proof that the money inside, including what is visible, is genuine and not a prop?
This is my sort of pedantry!
That is so stupid and cool at the same time
I've been thinking about using an app like this to count parking spaces in a city!
Thank you
>So yeah. They’re off by 50%.
Ah, that'll be the allowance for inflation/devaluation.
or allowance for vendor graft if they billed for $1mm
nit: Technically, even if there is exactly $1M you need to account for the box price since they don't specify that it's $1M in cash but just say "what one million dollars looks like".
That makes it worse, assuming the box has positive value
the fed guys who counted the money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymRqYz-Mxnw
It does contain $1,000,000, just not exactly that much.
Probably has a tidy façade, with a jumble full of gaps in the middle.
Edit: Actually I reckon they deliberately oversized the container a bit so it's easier to pack the cash in. You don't want to build it too small! (Relative budget notwithstanding). Another design constraint it has to be a cube, and has to fit nicely to the dimensions of the banknotes on the front face (aspect ratio and size) without having a big gap on one side.
Audit the Fed (cube)!
i'm amazed he accurately placed the dots. if i were to use the png on the site without dots, i'd have trouble placing them in a lot of areas.
Sure, it does technically contain $1,000,000. And also $550,400 of bonus money. Which is kind of like ordering a burger and getting three.
Well, no, it's kind of like ordering two burgers and getting three.
Did the author claim the excess cash there?
Or the counting is off...
It’s so easy for them to print USD money that they don’t care having 1M wasted like this.
It is almost certain that none of these bills represent wasted money. The piece of paper and the money are not identically the same thing. The paper is a document that is made to represent the money. At some point, the document is made to cease to represent the money. The Federal Reserve routinely acquires and destroys old worn bills, replacing them with freshly printed ones. This, by the way, has little or nothing to do with "how much money exists".
I dont know the answer.
But I DO know, the most of HN is probably autistic and mostly agree on an explanation that completely defies Occams Razor.
The truth imo...
Its mostly a million, fake, stuck to the sides, padding in the middle, with a few bills missing from the top for mementos from the last installer in the room. Every now and again some more bills are thrown in if people start asking too many questions.
Which ironically represents the FED accurately.
the homepage of this website is so cool, but also a bit pretentious. like, why would the OP include things like "#1 on Hackernews", etc.?
glad you like my website. it's there due to the lack of other meaningful achievements
I was nodding in modest agreement with @behnamoh's comment on self-aggrandizement, but your reply brought a huge smile to my face. And visiting his linked website dialed the mirth up to 11.
Inflation
"What if it’s hollow? [...] A money shell. A decorative cube. A fiscal illusion. The world’s most expensive piñata"
lol
well actually...
It was $1M back in 2007.
> "No-no-no, that won't do. The cube is too small! Its puny size doesn't convey the crushing might of the American dollar! Hm. Do we have bigger dollars?"
> "I'm afraid we don't, boss."
> "Let's inflate it!"
> "The dollar?"
> "Not the dollar, idiot, the cube! With air.
> "On second thought..."
Yeah, that was clumsy, because you inflate the economy, a currency is depreciated.
"The world’s most expensive piñata"
Now show me a cube made of gold worth $1M.
It's approximately a 3 inch cube.
To be precise, a 7.83 cm³ cube. More portable, though a bit heavy at 9.27 kg.
Now this is the type I post I come for
1 Million Swiss Francs in the highest denomination (1000) weighs just 1.14 kg and is a stack of bills around 10 cm high. That is currently also around 1,261,037 USD
[1] https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wert-nutzung-gewicht-6-fakten-z...
Ron Paul is still alive and in some small way, just got his dream of auditing the fed turned into reality.
Re Dot Counter, cool work, but charging me $3 to download an image with dots on it is just silly.
still cheaper than https://countthings.com/
That's 0.80€ per count and it's automatic. Still seems too expensive.
[dead]
Not surprised that the Fed overspent a project by 50%.
I doubt this cost them 1.5M out of their real budget, lol. My guess is these are not legal tender in some way, e.g. worn-out bills that would otherwise be destroyed.
The fact that this is not obvious to everyone is a bit disturbing to be honest..
[flagged]
It's always amusing how people easily carry $1M cash in the movies.
Those are probably $100 bills. So you only need to fill a bag with 100 bundles. Easily fits in a duffle bag I'd assume.
In the movies, it's $100 bills, which are considerably more portable than $1 bills.
Would you roughly say 100x more portable?
Using somat's estimate of 49" on a side, it would roughly weigh the same as 49^3/100 cu in of solid wood. Given a range of 0.01-0.03 lb/cu-in for pine, and choosing the midpoint: 23.5 lb.
Very portable.
(Yes, it's cotton not wood, but the weight of solid cotton is hard to find, and probably not much different.)
Cross-check: bills are apparently ~1g apiece. That predicts $1M in $100-bills is 20.8 lb. Very close.
sorry I missed that.
Yeah, that many pennies would be really heavy.
Similarly, I always love it when small women smuggle suitcases full of gold in movies, when it would be heavy enough to break the handle off if it weren’t painted styrofoam.
Compress the cube by 100x and you could probably carry it
Those aren't stacks of one dollar bills though.
if it's in $100 bills you can fit it in a suit case easily with lots of space left
well, using larger denominations helps.
I think you could tell if the bill was purple (Swiss franc [1]) instead of green in the movies...
[1] https://www.snb.ch/.imaging/flex/jcr:778b68b3-1344-4872-93d7...
the cube is full of $1 bills
obligatory
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n6dJB8OcA8I
Once more proof the fed cannot be trusted. They are a private (and very secretive) entity at the heart of the US govt, thus not democratically governed.
if the Federal Reserve lies about the numbers.... what don't they lie about?
Did they ever consider there could be a hollow core, or filler to account for the discrepancy?
Yes, I used my eyes to read the article and I can confirm that they did consider it, because they wrote it down in the article we are discussing.
Fair - I missed the "Empty Inside?" section. Just accidental carelessness. I appreciate the correction, though your tone was needlessly aggressive.
I will be more thorough in future articles/comment sections, and apologize for wasting your time, but please mind your attitude next time.
The exhibit rotates. It will have the same kind of structure shown at the bottom through the middle of it at the very least, and probably a sort of skeleton for stability.
I missed the "Empty Inside?" section. Apologies for that - I'll be more thorough in future articles/comment sections.
Yes, they did.
I missed the "Empty Inside?" section. Apologies for that - I'll be more thorough in future articles/comment sections.
That's in TFA
I missed the "Empty Inside?" section. Apologies for that - I'll be more thorough in future articles/comment sections.
Did you account for the paper band that wraps the 100 one-dollar bills? Not nitpicking, but you said you counted everything you could see.
It should be between 0.002-0.004 in. thick, so each band per bundle is about 0.004 to 0.008 thick. Might take off a little bit of your overage.
OP counts the number of bundles, so I don't think this solves it.
In case you wondered, $1M in cash ($100 bills) weigh approximately 22 pounds (about 10 kilograms).
Last week I was watching that episode of Better Call Saul where he carries $7M throughout the desert for 36 hours, and realized his bags were supposed to get ripped 4 minutes into the process.
--
Calculation by Claude:
Here's the calculation:
A single US banknote weighs about 1 gram regardless of denomination.
So 70,000 bills × 1 gram = 70,000 grams = 70 kilograms = 154 pounds.
That's quite heavy - equivalent to carrying around a large person!
Those 70,000 bills would also represent $7 million in cash
* edit corrected the pounds calculation
> In case you wondered, $1M in cash ($100 bills) weigh approximately 15.4 pounds (about 10 kilograms).
Your answer is incorrect. You asked Claude to calculate $7M, which netted 154 pounds, but you then divided it by 10 instead of 7 to get the weight of $1M.
Further, it's quite irrelevant here, as the display involves $1 banknotes, not $100 bills. The correct answer, without the need for an LLM, is: 1 million bills times one gram = 1 million grams = 1,000 kg = 1 metric ton.
That's perhaps the heftiest clue that it might not be actually 1 million $1 bills. Looks unsafe to perch it like that.
It's substantially more than 1 million $1 bills.
So more than a metric tonne swiveling like that? Sounds dangerous.
Not particularly. That whole cube could be supported by a 1/4" diameter steel pin. The actual support almost certainly has a double digit factor of safety.