[jfoutz]

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.

[AlotOfReading]

The actual paper uses 47 kiloanni, so the HN title is correct. It's the phys.org author that got the numbers wrong.