Holy **** that article is bad. At first glance I incorrectly interpreted the headline as 2.3x the size of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs (which I'm sure was the intention). Nope, it's 2.3x the size of "a dinosaur." A tiny little jumpy dinosaur or one of the big mofos? Meaningless. Could be anything. So apparently the asteroid is 51m in diameter. That's actually a decent sized chunk. Why didn't they just say that in the headline?

LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks

Reply With Quote

Bookmarks