Years ago, Esquire put Michelle Pfeiffer on the cover, with the headline "For the Woman Who Needs Absolutely Nothing". A little later, Harpers published the retoucher's bill for that photograph, to the great amusement of many. You could look it up at https://harpers.org/archive/1991/01/what-michelle-pfeiffer-n..., but you'll have to pay.

I agree, the reason i find it worrying tho is because of the lack of diversity. the massive reach means even more people will have a uniform set of standards.

"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I didn't comment on wether someone read the article. I stated that the description is accurate enough for it not to mandate a picture.

I was not replying to you, but rather to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776078. Probably you were confused by that comment being [dead], and assumed that I was replying to your adjacent one instead.

This happens from time to time, and I'm not sure how best to eliminate the confusion.

So instead they just hired people who looked a specific way instead of using technology to make them all look a specific way.

I read the article. We obviously have very different interpretations, but I’m unsure why you think my comment doesn’t make sense. Could you clarify?