2 ms·
Why exactly? It's three of the oldest stars, not the three oldest stars. There could be a quadrillion stars of a similar age and the statement could still be t
by Aloisius 2y ago
Why exactly? It's three of the oldest stars, not the three oldest stars.
There could be a quadrillion stars of a similar age and the statement could still be true.
- bufferoverflow 2y agoOk, then the wording is horrible. As you can consider all the stars except the youngest one as "the oldest stars".
- jbstack 2y agoI think the wording is fine. While technically you are correct, most people will not interpret "three of the oldest" to mean that they could be 2 seconds old as long as there is another star which is 1 second old.
- thegrim33 2y agoIt's a common journalist tactic that allows for painting a misleading picture. E.g., I read a story earlier today about "State X among the worst states for Y". The state could be #2 out of 50, and they'd be "among the worst 49". The state could be #49 out of 50, and they'd be "among the worst 2". Same thing here. Three of the oldest stars? It means literally nothing but it paints a picture.