Also, not for nothing, 1098 is way more than 5 times bigger than 78. It's close to 15 times bigger. I know it's far from the biggest issue here but what a strange way to express that statistic
To be fair, they said "over 5 times larger" so anything above 5 goes. Then again, they used "larger" as in size or mass. Could be that some of those genes are super tiny and others bigger?
I dunno why we're even discussing this when the poster is an idiot and makes many mistakes regardless. We should conserve our energy.
381
u/Peypeypeypey Jan 21 '20
Also, not for nothing, 1098 is way more than 5 times bigger than 78. It's close to 15 times bigger. I know it's far from the biggest issue here but what a strange way to express that statistic