diff --git a/content/sundries/a-thoroughly-digital-artifact/index.md b/content/sundries/a-thoroughly-digital-artifact/index.md
index bdae7b2..94974b1 100644
--- a/content/sundries/a-thoroughly-digital-artifact/index.md
+++ b/content/sundries/a-thoroughly-digital-artifact/index.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 title = "A Thoroughly Digital Artifact"
 slug = "a-thoroughly-digital-artifact"
 date = "2023-01-19"
-updated = "2023-01-20"
+updated = "2023-01-21"
 [taxonomies]
 tags = ["3dprinting", "CAD", "GIS", "CNC", "art", "sundry", "proclamation", "research"]
 +++
@@ -500,10 +500,10 @@ miles tall; the actual height is a little less than that, but that's OK, the arg
 strongly at lower height. That means the ratio of height to length is 3/700, or 0.0043-ish.
 
 If you had a physically accurate topographic carving of California that was a foot long, the tallest
-peak on the carving would be 0.0043 feet high, which is about 1/200th of an inch, or about 0.13
-millimeters. You'd probably be able to tell with your fingers and maybe even your eyes where Shasta was,
-and see that there was a faint line from the Sierra Nevadas, but that would be it. That's why it's
-so hard to see the details in the <a href="#raw-dem">raw elevation data</a> geotiff.
+peak on the carving would be 0.0043 feet high, which is about 1/20th of an inch, or about 1.3
+millimeters. You'd probably be able to see and feel where Shasta was, and see that there was a faint
+line from the Sierra Nevadas, but that would be it. That's why it's so hard to see the details in
+the <a href="#raw-dem">raw elevation data</a> geotiff.
 
 In order to be able to see any detail, and to meet expectations about what a topographic carving is
 supposed to look like, the height of the highest peaks needs to be scaled up by something like