{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by BADMAGIK:
6/21/2013 6:56:09 PM
3
Your title sucks ass OP. Why didn't you just write, "Possibly the smallest galaxy in our known universe?"
WTF is "least massive galaxy?" Lol.
English
-
Small =/= mass.
-
Least massive makes plenty of sense, especially when you see it relates to space.
-
Because "smallest" does not necessarily mean "least massive." A neutron star, for example, is more [i]massive[/i] than a solar-mass star, but is actually smaller. When most people think "small," they associate it with volume. Granted, the two seem tied when it comes to galactic characteristics, "least massive" is the most fitting. Regarding your other question, at the moment, this galaxy [i]is[/i] the least massive one known. Scientists aren't claiming it's the least massive one ever, but it [i]is[/i] the least massive galaxy observed thus far.
