Actually, it’s more interesting that Chrome isn’t confused by it. A standards-compliant browser should be confused by a mistake that egregious.
Nevertheless, my life is made easier when handing out a URL verbally or otherwise to the average public, if I don’t have to worry they will use the wrong one and not know how to fix it or to try another browser.
“Open another browser.”
“What’s a browser?”
It is making your life easier. When browsers do things right, there is going to be a whole lot less crap you have to clean up when they do things wrong. Especially when security is involved.
Taking the (supposedly) easy way around security and standards is not good for anyone. That includes you.
I don’t get the skinny legs idea. I would have thought a scaled up human would need huge thighs and hips* supporting a relatively small torso; sort of like Godzilla.
*which Slug would have done justice to I’m sure.
Look at a giraffe. Legs need to support their own weight too, and skinny legs weigh less.
Which raises the question of why there’s no illustration accompanying this week’s article.
Powers &8^]
Are you using Firefox? For some reason Slug’s illustration doesn’t show up in Firefox but does in Chrome (I’m on Linux). Maybe FF installed a taste filter? 
I also have Ad Block, which may have something to do with it.
See post #18 above.
TPTB are apparently not going after this problem.
They’d probably be a bit hard and rough. Unless you mean silicone, which I’ve met a few.
Did you report it? Using the Report button? Or did you just assume that mentioning it in this thread would get their attention?
Okay, I just did.
How big CAN a really big atomically obtained women be, give or take, given the rules discussed in the column?
The big question to Me is, why it’s not 50 feet?
It depends on the context, as discussed here. For example (taken from the link), which of the following sounds better?
Similarly, our 50 foot woman is 50 feet tall.
I asked the same thing in post #17. 
If you mean with an otherwise normal human figure, I’d say nine feet is about the upper limit. If you mean something “human” with a body like Jabba the Hutt, who can say?
Trees can grow way taller than 50ft. Maybe the trick is to grow a really womanly tree…
Trees don’t have to walk. Maybe you could have a 50-foot living statue that’s 90% solid bone inside.
Tell the ents.
I assume you are estimating by the recorded largest human, Robert Wadlow at 8ft. 11 inches, 439lbs? I believe that brings up the earlier conversation about “realistic” bodies vs. the ratio given. The thing is most unusually tall people aren’t actually scaled up. They seem to be thinner, and they get progressively (proportionally?) “weaker”.
I think the answer you gave of 9 ft is an appropriate answer for the question: “How tall can a human being grow?” if by you constrain the question to only include people able to move under their own power, no extrordinary measures take to prolong their live, etc.
How large a “to scale” human being can grow might be best answered by taking the average height of a population under ideal environmental circumstances. Currently, that would be the Dutch at an average height of 6’1". That’s not to say you couldn’t breed taller people, and certainly taller people exist… but from an Darwinian point of view, that seems to be the largest “natural” height. Taller people might have more health problems (or any number of other factors) which make them less successful at passing on their genes to the population. I guess there isn’t a way to “scale up” human size, you have to decide what is “normal” and use THAT as your scale.
One could conceivably obtain data on the structural properties of bone, muscle, tendons, etc. One could then obtain dimensions on the proportions for various factors like bone lengths, hip width, etc for the average man and woman, whatever that means.
One could then assess the loads said average man and woman endure on a nominal basis standing, walking, running, jumping, etc.
One could then mathematically scale the loads vs the proportional dimensions and determine where the loads meet or exceed the structural properties at the proposed scale.
Good luck with that.
There’s also a limit on how many times cells can divide, which will ultimately limit the amount of mass they can produce before ceasing to divide. Of interest, body mass appears to be inversely correlated with longevity; taller people have shorter lifespans, as reported here, likely because cells have to divide more often for growth/maintenance (the same is also true in other species like dogs, although this doesn’t hold across species).
Thus, a 50 foot woman growing from an otherwise normal human baby may be impossible and would literally grow to death (cells reach division limit and start dying off; note also that due to the time needed for a person to grow, many cells would die off and need to be replaced and not contribute to the final height) even if her body strength was able to keep up with its growth.