The article probably wasn't wrong, for when it was first written. This is a curious internet thing - this article is a decade old and has been updated incrementally to keep it somewhat relevant, however because it's about tech that keeps advancing it ends up being a misleading source.
If you look at all of the sources, they're from January 2014 but because the article is undated it leads you to think it's is correct. It's an interesting problem. An old textbook is clearly an old textbook, but a website can just have modern CSS applied, dates removed and there is no apparent guide to the freshness of the article. Internet problems.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/08/05/noah-lyles-wins-gold-track-...
This appears to be regurgitating a source that misread the primary material. The differential is actually -0.04s. I.e., before they touch the wall.
https://swimming.ca/content/uploads/2015/05/chief-judge-elec...
https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/02/08/77c3058d...
The brands that are displayed are part of the same group, and do indeed sell watches, and therefore are printed on the equipment.
They were the result of a merger when the Swiss watchmakers got afraid of growing sales of Japanese watches, especially Seiko [1].
[0]: https://www.swatchgroup.com/en/companies-brands/electronic-s...
[1]: https://codefabrik-static-various.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.... (PDF, 304kB)
Sounds like fertile ground for a Ph.D thesis that sparks a nail craze.
As below, this is why the metric system is superior. Centiseconds vs hectoseconds makes it much easier to see the mistake.
Anyone with at least half a brain knows this is ridiculously fast. Thats obviously incorrect
For other dummies, it should be milliseconds (1000x difference)
> The duration of a blink is on average 100–150 milliseconds according to UCL researcher and between 100 and 400 ms according to the Harvard Database of Useful Biological Numbers.
The 100-200 milliseconds duration of a blink was often cited in web development circles in the late 90s / early '00s, that I sometimes forget it isn't a widely known fact.
> When the leading edge of each runner's torso crosses the line, the camera sends an electric signal to the timing console to record the time.
I believe it’s up to the judge to place the “crossing” line at the appropriate spot.
https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=4423f7...
I have seen some articles discussing this during the last olympics, and remember thinking how much more impressive it made the job of measuring completion.
Put it another way, both (10.00, 10.01) and (10.00, 20.00) map to (gold, silver), despite being qualitatively very different.
It's a kind of weird society of competition we're building... I prefer flowers and gardening, reading and debating
There are other sports in the Olympics where athletes can share in a medal should both Athletes agree.
Regardless of whether you place gold, silver or bronze they are still the "best athletes" in the world, heck to even make it to the final is an incredible achievement in of itself.
You can still view all of these athletes as incredible, regardless of who got the gold.
We can have both.
Gardening, reading, debating is compatible with collaboration
The golden rule applies.
