[mintone]

The article states that "They scan an image through a thin slit up to 2,000 times a second", whereas it has been widely reported that it is actually 40,000 times a second[1]

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-...