What a horrible source. This is really shit reporting.
They’ve hyperlinked the word “hot dogs” to another article on their site titled “Hot dogs sold as ‘vegan’ dogs at Tel Aviv Hanukkah event”.
They’ve also spent part of the article estimating the average hot dog size, converting it between units, and converting the reported asteroid size into hot dog units.
All of the section headers are lame hotdog based puns.
This whole shitty presentation adds nothing to the article. It’s distracting. In fact, if you take out this bullshit, the article is really only a couple of meaningful paragraphs. And while there is absolutely value in comparing an asteroid size to a daily object (say, “the size of a car”), there is absolutely zero value, perhaps negative value, in comparing an asteroid size to a collection of sequential hot dogs, or two superbowl trophies.
I could somewhat understand if NASA themselves where putting out press releases with these weird comparisons: that would be a somewhat playful and innocent way to increase public interest. But when it is coming from third-party sources, who push it way past the point of playfulness into absurdity, it loses any value.
Also, unless I’m missing it: they don’t even link to a NASA statement. So it’s pure editorializing without linking to their primary source.
How many bananas?
Those science titles keep getting dumber. I think last year there was an asteroid which was the size of “half a giraffe”.
The metric half-giraffe is the accepted unit, I thought.
100 hot dogs? Implying that makes it a more accessible mental image as though we’ve all got 100 hot dogs just lying around?
'Merican measurements make me feel patriotic.
Weiner sizzle is better than the author’s past mcburger bomb
Jesus christ. What useless reporting, every time. Are they paid by the word? These have the same template-looking structure and both have their word count highly inflated with zero added value.
