Post #1237874
2026-02-24 22:26 UTC
How come the 131 foot altitude in the headline is never mentioned in the article? These turbine operates at 4,921 feet, a number that makes a lot more sense when you convert it to metric, 1.5 km. The article is littered with these odd imperial measurements that should have just been left as nice round metric numbers, or least re-rounded after conversion. 130 feet would have read better, but the original number was 40 m.
Replies (3)
-
@essell@lemmy.world 2026-02-24 22:32
is it 131ft long? 🤔
-
@W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-02-25 15:16
-
@RaoulDook@lemmy.world 2026-02-25 15:03
It's not that hard to comprehend both measurement systems. Both are valid and it's up to the author to choose how they want to express their figures. You can send them a complaint if you want, but complaining about their measurements here isn't going to change anything.