News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-old Burgess Shale. Parent comment

Re:Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-ol... by davidw on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @04:36PM (#28462717)
Yes, but with the headline and the guy talking 'massive'... they could have included a 'relative to' or something? I was expecting some kind of deep sea leviathan.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-ol... by isk517 on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @04:44PM (#28462805)
'Dog-sized animal species discovered...' gets a lot less clicks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-ol... by Fricken on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @04:56PM (#28462949)
The relation was made in the headline. It stands to reason that a massive half billion year old animal would be massive relative to other animals from a half billion years ago.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-ol... by Dylan16807 on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @05:27PM (#28463286)
Does the average person have a good sense of how big animals were 500 million years ago vs. 250-300 million years ago? The latter of which was quite big, and any 'massive' from there on would be fitting by modern standards.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Massive animal species discovered in half-billion-year-ol... by stan_rogers on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @05:42PM (#28463425)
The average interested person would have, yes. That would include anybody who's watched any of the relevant PBS Nova programming, or any of David Attenborough's work, etc. - you don't need to have kept your head in the journals to be informed at that level.
[ Parent | on HN ]