• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think this is more to visualize the size of the ascent on K2, rather than the true size of the mountain.

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      What’s misleading?
      It literally tells you the foot of the mountain is already around 4000m above sea level.

      • teft@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Everest isn’t 8000 meters from the base to peak. It’s 8000 meters at the peak but the foothills are several hundred meters high before you even get to everest. The buildings shown would have to be shown below ground if we really wanted to see them compared to everest’s height.

        • mech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. The buildings are shown as you would see them if they were built at the base of the mountain, to show its size. The sea level is irrelevant for this illustration.
          2. This isn’t Mount Everest.
          • teft@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Then why is the top listed as everest’s height k2’s height (just woke up and can’t read yet), ? It should list height from base to peak, not sea level to peak. It’s misleading this way.

              • teft@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Well fuck, not only did i misread the mountain but i completely missed the smudge that looks like snow stating the starting height.

                I stand corrected. I’m going for coffee so i can look like less of a dipshit today.

          • teft@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            The misleading part is having the picture labeled as the height of k2 here. The height listed should be its prominence not sea level to peak.

              • teft@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                That’s not the issue i had with the photo. It was it not being labeled at the proper height from the base. I didn’t notice the label at the bottom hence the strike-thru of my comment.

                Those that don’t completely read the comment thread can be confused by different markup labeling.

    • ooli3@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      at 800m the Burj is still at 1/10 of the 2nd tallest mountain… seems big no?