It's the "scientists have discovered the formula for" story. You know the sort - they've discovered the formula for the perfect sexy walk, or the ideal biscuit-dunk, or whatever.
These stories are invariably provided by PR companies and self-promoters, and used as gap-filler by understaffed newspapers and TV stations the world over. And they are invariably bullshit of the very highest order. The "formulae" seldom even make internal sense, and when they do make internal sense you can count on them being quite unconnected to anything in the real world.
And, and this is the part that really matters, these stupid stories help to create a public perception of "scientists" as white-coated "boffins" with no real comprehension of the world, who have nothing important to do all day, and nothing comprehensible to say.
You know you're looking at a really broken formula when you see one side of the equation all being multiplied or divided by one variable. The formula for "the perfect joke", for instance, has one side divided by the number of puns. This means all jokes that do not include any puns at all are either infinitely funny, or funny to an undefined extent, depending on which way you look at it.
Many of the "formulae" don't even get that far, though. They're just a misshapen assemblage of algebraic characters, such as you'd expect a seven-year-old to draw if they were pretending to be a mathematician.
This latest example, an alleged formula for determining the "naughtiness rating" of a woman's garment, is entirely representative. It makes no sense in the first place - as long as your nipples are covered, it's apparently impossible to be naughty at all - and the example of it used in the article is broken, with an obvious but un-noticed multiplication by zero making the book-promoting "Cambridge mathematician" responsible look, appropriately, an utter tit.
So far, so usual.
Sometimes, I regret to say, Mr Taylor finds himself driven to profanity.