• teft@piefed.socialEnglish
    41·
    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
      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.socialEnglish
        22·
        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.socialEnglish
            211·
            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.socialEnglish
        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.socialEnglish
            21·
            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.