Bruh. Did you read the article? It used a reference size once (school bus), imperial units twice (distances), and metric twice (depth and length of tentacles).
Technically if we’re talking about the organism it used majority metric, and even had them in there twice (including literally under the title in the summary).
IT’S EVEN IN METRIC IN THE ARTICLE DESCRIPTION POSTED ON THIS PLATFORM.
That’s some serious bias to skip all that and pick out the one odd visual aid.
Everything but metric, huh
Bruh. Did you read the article? It used a reference size once (school bus), imperial units twice (distances), and metric twice (depth and length of tentacles). Technically if we’re talking about the organism it used majority metric, and even had them in there twice (including literally under the title in the summary).
IT’S EVEN IN METRIC IN THE ARTICLE DESCRIPTION POSTED ON THIS PLATFORM.
That’s some serious bias to skip all that and pick out the one odd visual aid.
While I applaud you on your rigorous scientific standards… sometimes you just have to have a larf about it.
I was commenting on the title.
What does “a bus” bring instead of a measurement in meters? Nothing, so why put it as a title?
You’re the one deflecting, for some reason, and trying to ignore the title which is supposed to be the first thing you read.
Relatability. Science communication is itself a science, not just an endless stream of dry facts.
I relate more to meters than an arbitrary bus. And science communication is about making things clear as a priority, and this does the opposite.
It’s the size of a certain fraction of an American football field. How much more precise of a measurement do you need?!