this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
297 points (95.4% liked)

Today I Learned (TIL)

8343 readers
1 users here now

You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

/c/til is a community for any true knowledge that you would like to share, regardless of topic or of source.

Share your knowledge and experience!

Rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] myster0n@feddit.nl 50 points 5 days ago (4 children)

That's a misleading graph as it starts at 4000m

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 35 points 5 days ago

I think this is more to visualize the size of the ascent on K2, rather than the true size of the mountain.

[–] ooli3@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 days ago

at 800m the Burj is still at 1/10 of the 2nd tallest mountain.. seems big no?

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

What's misleading?
It literally tells you the foot of the mountain is already around 4000m above sea level.

[–] mech@feddit.org 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] teft@piefed.social 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

~~Everest isn’t 8000 meters from the base to peak. It’s 8000 meters at the peak but the foothills are several hundred meters high before you even get to everest. The buildings shown would have to be shown below ground if we really wanted to see them compared to everest’s height.~~

[–] mech@feddit.org 29 points 5 days ago (1 children)
  1. The buildings are shown as you would see them if they were built at the base of the mountain, to show its size. The sea level is irrelevant for this illustration.
  2. This isn't Mount Everest.
[–] teft@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Then why is the top listed as ~~everest’s height~~ k2’s height (just woke up and can’t read yet), ? It should list height from base to peak, not sea level to peak. It’s misleading this way.

[–] mech@feddit.org 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It shows the height above sea level at the base, too.

[–] teft@piefed.social 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well fuck, not only did i misread the mountain but i completely missed the smudge that looks like snow stating the starting height.

I stand corrected. I’m going for coffee so i can look like less of a dipshit today.

[–] mech@feddit.org 7 points 5 days ago

Enjoy your coffee, friend!

[–] Horsecook@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Buildings and mountain are shown at actual size. The graphic is only comparing prominence.

[–] teft@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The misleading part is having the picture labeled as the height of k2 here. The height listed should be its prominence not sea level to peak.

[–] Horsecook@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

People generally refer to mountains by their altitude, and buildings by prominence. Those that are aware of the difference can subtract 4000 from 8611. Those that are not would be confused by different labeling.

[–] teft@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

That’s not the issue i had with the photo. It was it not being labeled at the proper height from the base. I didn’t notice the label at the bottom hence the strike-thru of my comment.

Those that don’t completely read the comment thread can be confused by different markup labeling.