The Fed says this is a cube of $1M. They're off by half a million

2025-07-0116:221478552calvin.sh

Trust me, I counted.

The Fed says this is a cube of $1 million. They're off by half a million.

Trust me, I counted.

At the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s Money Museum, there’s a big transparent cube on display. It’s filled with tightly packed stacks of $1\$1$1 bills, claiming to contain $1,000,000\$1,000,000$1,000,000.

The plaque proudly declares:

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!

But I don’t trust signs. I trust counting.

The Big Count

I first tried counting the stacks right there in the room. The cube was tall, so I had to step back to see the whole thing, squinting at the stacks, trying to follow each row. I lost track almost immediately.

Also, people were starting to look at me funny. Apparently, staring intensely at a pile of cash while muttering numbers isn’t normal museum behavior.

Then, I tried with a photo. I zoomed all the way in on my phone, dragging my finger across the screen, mentally tallying as I went.

Still couldn’t keep count.

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.

Turns out it… doesn’t. At least, not as a web app I can find on Google.

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, not people, penguins, or stacks of $1 bills in a Federal Reserve cube.

So I made Dot Counter.

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.

I originally made it to investigate this very cube, but I figured other people might need to count stuff in pictures.

Now it’s yours too.

Go forth. Count wisely.

Count your enemies. Count your blessings. Count your stacks of cash.

Because when someone tells you it’s a million dollars, you might want to double check.

Final Tally

A large transparent cube filled with stacks of $1 bills is displayed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Money Museum. The cube is labeled as containing one million dollars. Overlaid on the image are colored annotations measuring the cube’s dimensions: the red diagonal face is labeled "102", the blue vertical edge is labeled "19", and the green horizontal edge is labeled "8". These measurements represent the number of bill stacks in each dimension, indicating the cube holds significantly more than one million dollars.

Assuming each bundle contains 100100100 bills*, that’s

102×8×19×$100=$1,550,400102 × 8 × 19 × \$ 100 = \$ 1,550,400102×8×19×$100=$1,550,400

*The straps on them are blue which is the standard for a stack of 100100100 $1\$1$1 bills. Unless these are some sort of ultra-rare $64.5\$64.5$64.5 bundles. In which case, I have follow-up questions.

So yeah. They’re off by 50%50\%50%.

That’s $550,400\$550,400$550,400 in extra cash.

Hmm 🤔

Imagine the meeting.

“Hey so… we’re $550,400 over budget on the million-dollar cube project.”

Bad at math?

If you knock 222 from each dimension (basically pealing away the outermost layer of money bundles), the math actually gets kinda close

100×6×17×$100=$1,020,000100 \times 6 \times 17 \times \$ 100 = \$ 1,020,000100×6×17×$100=$1,020,000

but since dollar bills are much wider than they’re tall, it wouldn’t look like a cube anymore.

Inflation?

Maybe the Fed is playing the long game.

At the Fed’s 2%2\%2% inflation target, this cube will be worth $1\$1$1 million in today’s dollars in:

log1.02(1,550,4001,000,000)=22years\log_{1.02}(\frac{1,550,400}{1,000,000})=22 \thinspace\text{years}log1.02(1,000,0001,550,400)=22years

Can’t wait to come back in 2047 and say: “Nice. Nailed it.”

Technicality?

Sure, it does technically contain $1,000,000\$1,000,000$1,000,000.

And also $550,400\$550,400$550,400 of bonus money.

Which is kind of like ordering a burger and getting three.

I mean, sure, free stuff. But it’s not what you asked for.

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).

And get this: just the outermost layer is already worth:

[(102×8×19)(100×6×17)]×100=$530,400[(102 \times 8 \times 19) - (100 \times 6 \times 17)] \times 100 = \$ 530,400[(102×8×19)(100×6×17)]×100=$530,400

You’d only need a 3-layer-thick shell to blow past a million:

[(102×8×19)(96×2×13)]×100=$1,300,800[(102 \times 8 \times 19) - (96 \times 2 \times 13)] \times 100 = \$ 1,300,800[(102×8×19)(96×2×13)]×100=$1,300,800

How would you make a million dollar cube?

Turns out U.S. dollars are extremely non-cube-friendly. Each bill is 6.14in6.14\thinspace\text{in}6.14in wide by 2.61in2.61\thinspace\text{in}2.61in tall, a nice and even aspect ratio of:

6.142.612.3524904...\frac{6.14}{2.61} \approx 2.3524904...2.616.142.3524904...

Each 100-bill bundle is 0.43in0.43\thinspace\text{in}0.43in inches thick.

Best I could do

  • 909090 bundles per stack
  • 7×167 \times 167×16 stacks
  • 90×7×16×$100=$1,008,00090 \times 7 \times 16 \times \$ 100 = \$ 1,008,00090×7×16×$100=$1,008,000

Which gives you a lovely almost-cube:

  • 42.97in42.97\thinspace\text{in}42.97in (3.58ft)(3.58\thinspace\text{ft})(3.58ft) wide
  • 41.76in41.76\thinspace\text{in}41.76in (3.48ft)(3.48\thinspace\text{ft})(3.48ft) deep
  • 38.70in38.70\thinspace\text{in}38.70in (3.225ft)(3.225\thinspace\text{ft})(3.225ft) tall

Not perfect. Not terrible. At least it’s honest, unlike that other cube.

Conclusion

So what’s in the cube?

Maybe it’s $1\$1$1 million.

Maybe it’s an empty box with a money shell.

Most likely it’s $1.55\$1.55$1.55 million.

All I know is I built a tool, did the math, and triple-checked the stacks.

The sign says you don’t have to wonder. But I did anyway.

And now… you don’t have to either.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By onionisafruit 2025-07-0118:589 reply

    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...

    • By RajT88 2025-07-0119:146 reply

      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.

      • By takinola 2025-07-0121:024 reply

        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.

        • By arduanika 2025-07-024:252 reply

          The point is that if you do the boring job and save for long enough, and you'll reap the benefits of compound disinterest.

          • By dmje 2025-07-026:531 reply

            I love how literally you took that

            • By dwedge 2025-07-028:14

              I think they just wanted to say compound disinterest

          • By Cthulhu_ 2025-07-028:14

            Saving? In this economy?

        • By andrelaszlo 2025-07-0123:251 reply

          Once you realize that this task is massively parallelizable, you're all set!

          • By Cthulhu_ 2025-07-028:151 reply

            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

            • By RajT88 2025-07-0220:161 reply

              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.

              • By Yhippa 2025-07-0718:111 reply

                > I'm also at risk of getting laid off because of the practical upshot of being a top contributor

                Can you explain this to my pea brain?

                • By RajT88 2025-07-1117:20

                  Layoffs which are for cost savings sometimes target people with high salaries, because you can save more money with a single person being laid off. Those types of layoffs target the top earners and bottom performers.

                  I have seen it. People who have been with the company for decades, people who were principal level, people who always had awesome performance reviews.

        • By RajT88 2025-07-0121:092 reply

          Takes longer for some than others. Depends on your job title.

          • By throaway920181 2025-07-0122:216 reply

            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.

            • By Cthulhu_ 2025-07-028:21

              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...

            • By uxp100 2025-07-0122:46

              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.

            • By markb139 2025-07-0210:13

              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.

            • By achierius 2025-07-0122:431 reply

              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).

              • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-0123:319 reply

                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"...

                • By smcl 2025-07-0211:20

                  "this Friday" vs "next Friday" should be unambiguous except some people abuse "next Friday" and cause problems.

                • By MegaDeKay 2025-07-023:431 reply

                  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)?

                  • By jjcob 2025-07-027:061 reply

                    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.

                    • By sebastiennight 2025-07-028:162 reply

                      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.

                      • By jjcob 2025-07-037:14

                        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.

                      • By darkwater 2025-07-0213:141 reply

                        > 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?

                • By tobinfekkes 2025-07-020:103 reply

                  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.

                  • By Daneel_ 2025-07-020:292 reply

                    "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.

                    • By zippyman55 2025-07-026:55

                      This next Friday, I’ll be next to my girl Friday.

                    • By aspenmayer 2025-07-020:523 reply

                      What if they say “Friday week”?

                      • By nerdile 2025-07-022:292 reply

                        Native US English speaker here, and this is the first time I have ever heard of this. TIL

                        • By aspenmayer 2025-07-023:251 reply

                          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.

                          • By myself248 2025-07-024:434 reply

                            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".

                            • By aspenmayer 2025-07-024:46

                              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.

                            • By stolsvik 2025-07-065:44

                              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.

                            • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0210:51

                              I hear this in the US when people say "a couple things" instead of "a couple of things". The word "of" is missing!

                            • By leipie 2025-07-025:511 reply

                              In Dutch the literal translation is "half tien" which means 9:30 in Dutch. This can be quite confusing ;)

                              • By ryx 2025-07-027:461 reply

                                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.

                                • By onionisafruit 2025-07-0214:58

                                  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.

                        • By antod 2025-07-024:163 reply

                          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).

                          • By frereubu 2025-07-0211:421 reply

                            I always thought of "Friday week" as "Friday plus a week" rather than "next week's Friday".

                            • By antod 2025-07-0218:49

                              yeah, that's a better way of expressing it.

                          • By aspenmayer 2025-07-024:44

                            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.

                          • By kiwijamo 2025-07-026:562 reply

                            Never seen or heard this in New Zealand from native speakers.

                            • By antod 2025-07-0210:051 reply

                              We must move in different circles then ;)

                              Maybe I should ask my kids...

                              • By antod 2025-07-0218:57

                                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.

                            • By jama211 2025-07-029:111 reply

                              I’m Australian and I’ve heard this a lot

                              • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0210:49

                                Likewise. I'm Australian and have used it regularly for a long time. My parents have always used it.

                      • By Daneel_ 2025-07-021:151 reply

                        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.

                        • By aspenmayer 2025-07-021:341 reply

                          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.

                          • By d1sxeyes 2025-07-024:273 reply

                            > 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”.

                            • By aspenmayer 2025-07-024:371 reply

                              > > 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.

                              • By retsibsi 2025-07-026:002 reply

                                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.

                                • By aspenmayer 2025-07-027:141 reply

                                  > 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. ;)

                                  • By retsibsi 2025-07-027:341 reply

                                    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.)

                                    • By aspenmayer 2025-07-027:41

                                      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.

                                • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0210:59

                                  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.

                            • By thaumasiotes 2025-07-025:112 reply

                              > “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".

                              • By retsibsi 2025-07-026:081 reply

                                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.

                                • By thaumasiotes 2025-07-026:252 reply

                                  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".

                                  • By retsibsi 2025-07-026:56

                                    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.)

                                  • By aspenmayer 2025-07-028:04

                                    > "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.

                              • By defrost 2025-07-025:182 reply

                                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?

                                • By thaumasiotes 2025-07-025:25

                                  > 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.

                                • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-0223:061 reply

                                  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!

                                  • By defrost 2025-07-0223:12

                                    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.

                            • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0210:55

                              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.

                      • By Macha 2025-07-0210:331 reply

                        The second Friday from today

                        • By aspenmayer 2025-07-0210:362 reply

                          > 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?

                          • By Macha 2025-07-0212:24

                            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.

                          • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0210:48

                            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.

                  • By RajT88 2025-07-0211:242 reply

                    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.

                    • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-0223:17

                      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!

                    • By Zobat 2025-07-0211:57

                      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...

                • By dawatchusay 2025-07-022:232 reply

                  Where does “several” fall on your spectrum?

                  • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-026:28

                    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...

                  • By jamwil 2025-07-024:091 reply

                    Several is the gap

                    • By barbs 2025-07-025:553 reply

                      Took me an embarrassingly long time to realise that "several" didn't mean "about seven"

                      • By rkaid 2025-07-0211:49

                        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.

                      • By ta8903 2025-07-0213:17

                        As a kid I always thought "few" was ~5 and "several" was ~7.

                      • By iechoz6H 2025-07-027:48

                        In most contexts that wouldn't be a terrible translation.

                • By williamscales 2025-07-020:301 reply

                  I like the definition of several as “more than two but fewer than many”

                  • By aspenmayer 2025-07-023:28

                    “How many times more (than two)?”

                    “Several..?”

                • By Daneel_ 2025-07-020:256 reply

                  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".

                  • By onionisafruit 2025-07-021:001 reply

                    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 ).

                    • By Daneel_ 2025-07-021:201 reply

                      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).

                      • By onionisafruit 2025-07-0215:12

                        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.

                  • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-0223:30

                    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.

                  • By throwaway422432 2025-07-022:39

                    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.

                  • By 867-5309 2025-07-026:501 reply

                    a couple is always two. anything more is several, up to half a dozen

                    • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0211:051 reply

                      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.

                      • By 867-5309 2025-07-0212:24

                        indeed I would hand you two. if you asked for double next time, surely you'd expect four

                  • By _carbyau_ 2025-07-026:201 reply

                    > 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.

                    • By Daneel_ 2025-07-0211:02

                      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.

                  • By goopypoop 2025-07-020:541 reply

                    I'd like a handful of bowling balls, please.

                    • By Daneel_ 2025-07-021:181 reply

                      I mean, sure. That doesn't necessarily seem like a weird statement to me.

                      It's more than several, but still a manageable number.

                      • By goopypoop 2025-07-022:101 reply

                        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

                        • By Daneel_ 2025-07-022:551 reply

                          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.

                          • By goopypoop 2025-07-023:59

                            I'm just really enjoying the absurd scenario we've created

                • By dr_dshiv 2025-07-027:06

                  “I’m going to be a few minutes late”

                  Riiight

                • By dripdry45 2025-07-0220:14

                  Several or handful would be 7-11 in my book

            • By strken 2025-07-0122:481 reply

              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.

              • By skeeter2020 2025-07-0123:231 reply

                "couple" and "few" are debatable, but thanks to Survivor we know definitively that "several" means seven.

                • By happyopossum 2025-07-022:033 reply

                  Couple is not really debatable - it has a definition that includes 2. Not 2 or 3, or any more than 2. Just 2.

                  • By aspenmayer 2025-07-023:32

                    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.

                  • By staticman2 2025-07-0211:59

                    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.

            • By iwontberude 2025-07-0213:15

              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.

          • By BeFlatXIII 2025-07-0212:17

            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.

        • By mensetmanusman 2025-07-021:45

          Just add a few more clones running other companies and the spice will flow…

      • By noduerme 2025-07-028:50

        >> 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.

      • By sharkweek 2025-07-021:10

        Very relevant Key and Peele sketch:

        https://youtu.be/jgYYOUC10aM?si=YuTT_hR7y9t74mAQ

      • By Peacefulz 2025-07-026:03

        I wonder how much time it would take to feed all of those singles into laundromat and barcade quarter machines. ;D

      • By rand_r 2025-07-0219:161 reply

        > 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.

        • By Bratmon 2025-07-0223:581 reply

          Specifically invalidating serial numbers of cash used in a crime is a very common process.

          • By rand_r 2025-07-030:47

            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.

      • By fortran77 2025-07-024:26

        It shouldn't be a problem spending $1 bills. Nobody scrutinizes them. It'll just take a while.

    • By viccis 2025-07-0119:165 reply

      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?

      • By wavemode 2025-07-0121:551 reply

        The cash probably didn't cost the government anything. They can just use bills that are slated for replacement/removal from circulation.

        • By rmnwski 2025-07-029:011 reply

          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)

          • By luxuryballs 2025-07-0212:28

            yeah true only the top and bottom faces need real prints, these could all just be blank pieces of paper

      • By krisoft 2025-07-027:24

        > 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.

      • By ftmch 2025-07-0121:432 reply

        They can just print more money.

        • By eddythompson80 2025-07-020:491 reply

          It's almost as if the art piece is a commentary on the imagined order of money between humans.

          • By nosianu 2025-07-027:24

            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.

        • By bravesoul2 2025-07-0122:33

          They may be out of practice overclocking the physical presses now that they're used to typing all the zeros at a terminal.

      • By kingstnap 2025-07-0120:37

        Maybe they didn't realize it was wrong until they filled it 66% up.

      • By dessimus 2025-07-0214:15

        "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

    • By bravesoul2 2025-07-0122:321 reply

      It's a baker's million?

      • By floydnoel 2025-07-021:352 reply

        a banker's million! new term

        • By bravesoul2 2025-07-023:22

          More like mortgage debtor's million

        • By aspenmayer 2025-07-027:46

          I can only upvote you one time, so I had to add this to my favorites. It’s so rich.

    • By c249709 2025-07-0119:132 reply

      oof my googling skill so bad I didn't find this

    • By bobbygoodlatte 2025-07-0120:012 reply

      Seems pretty on-brand for the Fed

      As we say in my family: "close enough for government work!"

      • By asveikau 2025-07-0219:42

        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.

      • By a3w 2025-07-0210:46

        Fed (and European EZB) are not government institutions.

    • By numlock86 2025-07-025:091 reply

      > 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?)

      • By rmnwski 2025-07-029:03

        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

    • By dheera 2025-07-025:031 reply

      (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.

      • By xboxnolifes 2025-07-026:31

        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.

    • By echelon_musk 2025-07-0119:08

      If only he had Googled he could have saved himself all the trouble!

    • By mlindner 2025-07-0121:432 reply

      So who am I supposed to believe the personal blog or the reddit post?

      • By swores 2025-07-0122:33

        You can toss a coin on which one to believe, since either way you'd believe the same thing...

      • By krisoft 2025-07-026:41

        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?

  • By tasty_freeze 2025-07-0123:452 reply

    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.

    • By beaugunderson 2025-07-0223:25

      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).

    • By nojs 2025-07-0123:58

      This was the plot of a Monk episode if I recall correctly, except jelly beans

  • By mrandish 2025-07-0117:3520 reply

    > 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.

    • By ggreer 2025-07-0118:106 reply

      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.

      • By grogenaut 2025-07-0119:042 reply

        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

        • By kasey_junk 2025-07-0120:084 reply

          Coins don’t cost what they are worth to make.

          • By eloisant 2025-07-0122:121 reply

            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.

            • By ciupicri 2025-07-0123:071 reply

              I guess that's why we have €1 and €2 coins (1 EUR ≈ 1.18 USD).

              • By eru 2025-07-020:122 reply

                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?)

                • By extraduder_ire 2025-07-0210:48

                  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.

                • By acatnamedjoe 2025-07-028:143 reply

                  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?

                  • By Liquix 2025-07-0219:201 reply

                    > 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

                    • By eru 2025-07-0223:45

                      It's funny that Germany (and other countries) solved what's a social problem in the US with a simple piece of technology.

                  • By amenghra 2025-07-0214:05

                    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.

                  • By eru 2025-07-028:591 reply

                    It's not a thing in the US, I think.

                    And did Britain have this before the invasion of Aldi and Lidl?

                    • By jwarren 2025-07-0213:33

                      Yeah, we've had it for at least 30 years, probably longer

          • By adolph 2025-07-0122:41

            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...

          • By bandofthehawk 2025-07-0120:451 reply

            Pennies and nickels cost more to make than they are worth.

            • By jameshart 2025-07-0123:572 reply

              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.

              • By Ferret7446 2025-07-029:331 reply

                > 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.

                • By sayamqazi 2025-07-0210:39

                  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.

              • By Uvix 2025-07-024:38

                Stores are going to round amounts in their favor, not customers’. So they will make more money once the penny falls out of circulation.

          • By tempestn 2025-07-0120:21

            Pennies do. (More, actually.)

        • By dyauspitr 2025-07-0120:431 reply

          What do you mean? The currency in there is spendable isn’t it?

          • By tharkun__ 2025-07-0121:031 reply

            What leads you to believe that?

            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.

            • By dyauspitr 2025-07-0221:471 reply

              Because that’s the entire appeal of the structure, the fact that it’s filled with a million dollars.

              • By tharkun__ 2025-07-0511:22

                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.

      • By lxgr 2025-07-0119:421 reply

        > 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.

        • By meta_ai_x 2025-07-0119:458 reply

          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

          • By lxgr 2025-07-0119:49

            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.

          • By NovemberWhiskey 2025-07-0120:152 reply

            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.

            • By tharkun__ 2025-07-0120:58

              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.

            • By smj-edison 2025-07-0123:521 reply

              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.

              • By lxgr 2025-07-023:081 reply

                It’s the other way around. The treasury issues bonds; the Fed buys (or repos) them in exchange for newly issued USD.

          • By stephen_g 2025-07-0122:09

            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.

          • By Hamuko 2025-07-0120:311 reply

            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.

            • By lxgr 2025-07-0121:18

              > 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.

          • By xnyan 2025-07-0122:51

            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.

          • By Thrymr 2025-07-0121:10

            Yes, but the liability account in the Fed's case is /dev/null, isn't it?

          • By throwpoaster 2025-07-0120:05

            Does the USG not use quad entry?

          • By jacksnipe 2025-07-0119:512 reply

            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.

            • By hosh 2025-07-0120:32

              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.

            • By lxgr 2025-07-0120:07

              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.

      • By coliveira 2025-07-0120:12

        Most probably these are voided notes, they actually have zero value because they were taken out of circulation.

      • By jjk166 2025-07-0121:151 reply

        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.

        • By pbhjpbhj 2025-07-028:23

          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).

      • By logifail 2025-07-0119:27

        > 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...

      • By rtkwe 2025-07-0119:231 reply

        That ignores the other option which is it's not solid and they just filled the empty space with foam or a wooden box.

        • By dyauspitr 2025-07-0120:431 reply

          Which destroys what the exhibit is trying to show.

          • By jjk166 2025-07-0121:18

            The exhibit only claims this is what a $1M cube would look like.

    • By tmnvix 2025-07-0118:481 reply

      > 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...

      • By throwaway422432 2025-07-022:52

        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.

    • By daemonologist 2025-07-0118:132 reply

      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.

    • By johnfn 2025-07-0117:46

      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.

    • By NoSalt 2025-07-0120:231 reply

      > "How do I know that's not a bunch of ones with a twenty wrapped around it?"

      ~ Vincent LaGuardia Gambini

      • By tmtvl 2025-07-0120:53

        What's a yout?

    • By Retric 2025-07-0118:491 reply

      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.

      • By trhway 2025-07-0119:14

        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.

    • By gpm 2025-07-0118:071 reply

      > 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...

      • By mrandish 2025-07-0118:322 reply

        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.

        • By elzbardico 2025-07-0120:13

          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.

        • By roywiggins 2025-07-0118:432 reply

          It is the Fed though, does money actually "cost" anything for them? They're the ones who make the money!

          • By mrandish 2025-07-0118:542 reply

            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.

            • By rtkwe 2025-07-0119:26

              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.

            • By ekholm_e 2025-07-0119:42

              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.

          • By a2800276 2025-07-0118:581 reply

            Fun fact, people who work at the Fed just print their salary at the end of the month.

            • By necovek 2025-07-0119:392 reply

              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.

              • By lxgr 2025-07-0119:442 reply

                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.

              • By doubled112 2025-07-0119:58

                While not money, and probably not even real, those numbers in a DB still keep my kids fed. Tasty tasty DB numbers.

    • By Wowfunhappy 2025-07-0121:08

      ...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.

    • By Nextgrid 2025-07-0123:291 reply

      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).

      • By __float 2025-07-0123:381 reply

        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.)

        • By Nextgrid 2025-07-0123:47

          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.

    • By deepsun 2025-07-0118:442 reply

      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.

      • By necovek 2025-07-0119:411 reply

        $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)

      • By hgomersall 2025-07-0119:051 reply

        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.

        • By deepsun 2025-07-021:56

          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.

    • By beezle 2025-07-0214:13

      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.

    • By quantadev 2025-07-0117:572 reply

      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.

      • By a2800276 2025-07-0118:591 reply

        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.

        • By quantadev 2025-07-0120:38

          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.

    • By wl 2025-07-0121:05

      > 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.

    • By moralestapia 2025-07-0119:54

      Museum: "Don't worry, no one will notice".

      Calvin Liang: "Ackshually ..."

    • By jaisio 2025-07-0121:25

      Fun fact: "area" denotes 2D. The 3D term is "volume".

    • By rob_c 2025-07-0120:191 reply

      It's probably hollow to make the display easier and more reliable.

      • By eschneider 2025-07-0122:04

        It is hollow. But it wasn't originally. cough

    • By RyanOD 2025-07-0121:09

      Or, the cube was surplus?

    • By ninetyninenine 2025-07-0117:572 reply

      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.

      • By colejohnson66 2025-07-0118:001 reply

        They handle money by putting them in cubes of glass?

        Non-snark: Because it's fun to theorize.

      • By whatevertrevor 2025-07-0118:091 reply

        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.

        • By ninetyninenine 2025-07-0118:121 reply

          I'm half serious. Yeah I see the point. But more important to me is the analogy.

          • By whatevertrevor 2025-07-0118:361 reply

            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.

            • By ninetyninenine 2025-07-027:111 reply

              What some call cynicism is often just clarity. We live in a twilight world, where even the truth casts shadows

              • By whatevertrevor 2025-07-027:241 reply

                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.

                • By ninetyninenine 2025-07-028:201 reply

                  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.

                  • By whatevertrevor 2025-07-029:151 reply

                    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.

HackerNews