I also thought that was weird. Then I learned it gets better. If you click through to the BBC article that was apparently their main source, the quote is this:

> Alternatively, as Prof Barber explained, it can be compared to a single string of spaghetti holding up 3,000 half-kilogram bags of sugar.

So the professor used an item that was familiar to his English audience (1500 kg=3307 lbs), then the Smithsonian writer tried to be helpful in converting the units, but switched to an item far less familiar to an American. I don't think I've ever bought a 1lb bag of sugar here, while a 500g bag is a little small but normal in the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31500883

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-white...

But everyone knows, by experience, what 3300 individual roughly one pound bags of sugar weighs and what sort of force is needed to hold it up. Mid sized car is ambiguous, and nobody saw anybody hold that up (seeing hulk doesn't count)

While I am totally with you on the bags of sugar, I am also unsure of the significance of a single thread of spaghetti!

Is that by weight? By volume? Are we comparing uncooked (brittle) or cooked (flexible)?

Even so, spaghetti strand is not known for strength or tension resistance even when considering the weight/size/volume.

I can't at all understand what this comparison is meant to visualize for me, so it is obviously failing.

Mid-sized European or American car?

> 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar

Woah that must weigh almost 3,301 pounds!

I'm guessing this was initially '1.5 metric tons', and through a number of helpful and friendly conversions, ended up at 3,300 sugar bags.

Or a lift full of people.

Must be a british thing?

I can't wait until our LLM agents spot these and substitute in our own favorite, personally intuitive format conversions appropriate for the scale.

I'd like this to be expressed in units of pallet(s) of standard cinder blocks.