I think what the grandparent wanted to say is that every sharp S (ß) in the article should actually be Beta (β). The article probably refers to a certain slide[0] Jonah Peretti's presentation[1] "Mormons, Mullets and Maniacs" which actually uses a sharp S in italics. Seems to me like it should be a Beta indeed, especially since using a sharp S in this context would be rather unusual as far as I can tell.
What do you mean "nο"? The mix up here is that the equation given uses a symbol which is visually similar to a different symbol, in a confusing manner. In all my experience I don't think I've ever seen someone use ß (not beta) as a variable name, whereas it would be totally idiomatic to use beta there. There's no rule against it, but it looks like a mistake, or deliberate confusion. Did you notice that the word "no" in the first line used a lowercase omicron?
I checked the source [0] and that does indeed use ß, so I was wrong to blame the author of the piece. I now blame Jonah Peretti.
As tome says, no the article isn't mixing anything up. So why are you insisting that it is?
You seem annoyed that the original creator of the formula used a symbol that you wouldn't have expected. So that's your beef. Not with this article, or any assumptions of "mixing up."
As for why the original creator used "ß", I don't know, but perhaps it related to the "S" in sharability. Or he's not a mathematician and he liked the look.
