Let me give you another example since you must be one of those doctors who accepts “fairly recent” as an answer:
In a paper published in Nature Geosciences,the researchers report that the inner core is only about 565 million years old—relatively young compared to the age of our 4.5-billion-year-old planet. “Until this data, the age of the inner core was uncertain,” says John Tarduno, a professor and chair of earth and environmental sciences at Rochester. “There’s this huge range of 2 billion years where scientists think the inner core could’ve formed. These are the first field-strength data from the younger part of the range of possibilities suggesting that the inner core is really young.”
Is 565 million years “really young” like the professor stated? In simple minds, there is no way 565 million years is “really young.” But relative to the 4.5 billion year age of the planet, it is “really young.”
In other words, my original explanation is accurate: relation is important, unless you’re from west virginia, in which case, it has no impact on who you fvck.