When you think of a shipping container, think: API.<p>A shipping container is simply 8 knuckles (vertices) at a known distance, rigidly connected, with total weight within certain constraints. There are a number of objects that meet this standard; not just closed boxes with big doors at one end, but open frames, trays with big end pieces, tanks in rectangular frames...the possibilities are enormous. And they interconnect with a bunch of other devices (truck beds, railcars and each other on ships are just the most common.<p>Of course like many a standardized API there are several variants to choose from (more than just BSD vs SysV or emacs vs vi): the standard 40' length can be 20, or 53, and there are high top ones larger than usual. But actually not that many degrees of freedom.
Link to source paper to save everyone else the pain: <a href="https://sci-hub.hk/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.09.001" rel="nofollow">https://sci-hub.hk/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.09...</a><p>Despite the fact that this OP's article is thin on content, fee.org is a cancerous website. Upon clicking the article the site demands notification permission, then loads a shitload of sidebar junk. To avoid this I attempt to use Firefox reader mode, but that just loads a different article about automation (but with the shipping container headline).<p>EDIT: The paper is a solid read.
It wasn't a blessing to longshoremen (manual labor at ports) worldwide. That doesn't mean we should remain stuck in the past, driving horse-drawn carriages so the buggy whip makers can stay in business, but let's not gloss over the very serious downside to millions of people, their families and communities. Two thoughts:<p>1. I always try to remember: Capital can move and technology can change far faster than people can. The factory can move to another country far faster than its 10,000 employees can move to a new job, possibly in a new city. Shipping containers can be implemented far faster than millions (or more?) of longshoremen worldwide can learn new trades, find jobs, and return to their former incomes. I support innovation, but we should take care of the people who can't possibly keep up and who have little power over their fate.<p>2. If technology comes along that disrupts the careers of the politically weak, such as longshoremen, people say that it's just the nature of the game; that's innovation and they should take care of themselves. We just focus on the overall economic gains and are excited. But if new tech disrupts the politically strong, such as the music and film industries, then the technology is outlawed and law enforcement protects their privilege. Ironically, it's the weak who need that protection far more than the strong.<p>I used to think that we all should sacrifice for overall economic efficiency; that it's the rules of the game we all playI find it harder and harder to justify sacrificing the welfare of human beings for more cash, and of course I realized the 'rules' were made by a specific group of people to serve themselves.
It's basically an anti-protectionism web site. The book, "The Box" covers this subject very well.<p>Two things made international trade really work - containers and faxes. Faxes made it possible to do business efficiently across language boundaries. Invoices and purchase order forms make it across language barriers with some struggling on both sides, and if there's a problem, there's reasonably quick feedback. Trying to do that by phone or telegram or paper mail is much tougher. At last, the paperwork got there before the cargo did, which made shipping work far batter.
Standards are a great blessing for humanity. We don't pay much attention to standards but without them, society would be more difficult. Shipping containers are just another sample of their benefits.
One that many of us will remember is the standardization of power cords for Cellphones. There was a time all phones had their power connectors which made it impossible to share power chargers. Now we take it for granted that we can grab one from a friend or go to the store and buy one without much trouble. A small step but one of many that make a large difference for society.
If only they weren't so damn <i>heavy</i>. A significant proportion of the mass being shipped is often the container itself. There are efforts to make an equally strong and almost-as-cheap container out of composites, but unfortunately nothing has caught on yet.
Flexport is doing a boat cruise in the port of Oakland in May featuring talks about the history and future of trade. if you're into shipping containers email me, Ryan@flexport.com and I'll get you an invite for the cruisee!
Discovered a litany of amazing startups within the shipping container itself, all sorts of bags, bins, basically things to compartmentalized the space within a shipping container for a variety of things being transported. Huge food grade bags that can transport bulk wine, for example, rigged up safely inside a container.
Neat article, love learning about things like this. For those who want more, check out the Containers podcast [1]. Not usually a big podcast fan but I enjoyed this one a lot.<p><a href="https://soundcloud.com/containersfmg" rel="nofollow">https://soundcloud.com/containersfmg</a>
Shipping containers can also be turned into cheap houses when they're decommissioned. A search for "container home" brings a lot of results, some of them truly amazing though definitely less cheap.