it's such a weird phrasing. the article just says, 45000 years ago. There are a few more refined dates, but, like 45k seems good enough. maybe too long for the

it's such a weird phrasing. the article just says, 45000 years ago. There are a few more refined dates, but, like 45k seems good enough. maybe too long for the title? I think more likely, a programmer so frustrated with relative time handling the refuse not to give a relative time, but fat-fingered the anchor.