What exactly are you alleging that problem is?  What about our current method is harmful or detrimental in a way that makes it a problem?  This is “another way to look at things,” no more, no less. 

No, I disagree. I don’t see this as a problem with how people are taught about the solar system. We are taught the order of the planets outward from the Sun, and now, sometimes, what a planet actually is. This work answers a trick question because the answer to the question, “What planet is closest to the Earth?”…

Hopefully they didn’t actually calculate the planetary positions; planetary ephemeris files are widely available (your tax dollars at work!).

The whole calculation is interesting, but ultimately quite captain obvious. The kernel of the implication is that Mercury is on average the closest to each of the planets... because it’s the closest one to the sun, or the (approximate) centre of each planet’s orbit, and is never much further than half the diameter of…

This is some quality click bait

“Closest” means different things in different contexts. Mean distance between planets (as calculated here) is one thing, but for a lot of applications, it’s really the distance from the planet to the star that matters:

I had a Gender affirming procedure once, it was called Birth. Anything other than that is Gender Dysphoria affirming.  

Lordy, just what we need. More confusing and made-up PC terminology for something otherwise very clear. This is physical sex change surgery people, Sex change. Get over it. There’s nothing wrong with it (for those where it fits), but it’s not “affirmation”. Every time some moron makes up yet new terminology…

As an actual healthcare professional, these procedures are neither medically necessary nor should they be covered by insurance (especially taxpayer funded insurances)... this is a psychiatric disorder, not a physical one