News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by rootusrootus on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @10:54AM (#35628893)
For further reading, I found this [0]. 20000T happens, but seems to be on the top end and not a typical train.

[0] https://www.trainconductorhq.com/how-much-does-a-train-weigh...

Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by nayuki on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @11:47AM (#35629663)
Capital T is tesla, a unit of magnetic flux density.
Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by _zoltan_ on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @01:47PM (#35631103)
very important comment /s
Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by segfaultbuserr on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @11:07PM (#35635909)
Old habits die hard. I still occasionally see some engineering veterans who use the capital letter "S" for seconds (and they would write "nS" instead of "ns" for nanoseconds) - even in chip datasheets. And when I was reading a textbook one day, I also noticed that the author, an expert with a life career at Bell Labs, just couldn't write MHz properly, and instead wrote "Mhz".

In their time, Siemens and Hertz had not even been added to the SI system yet, I imagine they would speak in terms of mhos and megacycles back then.

Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by BenjiWiebe on Thursday April 20, 2023 @01:48PM (#35643593)
At least mhos and megacycles are unambiguous, unlike S or T.
Re:In 1930, the 22M-pound Indiana Bell building was rotated ... by burnished on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @05:46PM (#35633717)
Another commenter mentioned T is teslas, seems like the abbreviation for a ton depends on which ton you are talking about (wikipedia lists several and not all of them are mass/weight!).

From a conversion the article uses I believe they are using the metric ton (aka megagram) which abbreviates to the lower case t. The article you reference does not seem to ever abbreviate 'ton' and I suspect that may have been done intentionally to avoid running into this issue? Its what I would have done, anyway.

I don't think this impacts the readability of your comment I just thought it was a shame that the other comment didnt go all the way and attempt to describe correct useage.