It should be <500 or what they said. What they said is mathematically better but grammatically wonky, whereas what you said is 500 is less than steps per day.

Big number > small number < big number

If you read it aloud it doesn't sound right, but from a mathematical perspective it's saying the number of steps per day should be less than 500, which I think is the intention of the writer, no?

It’s correctly used in the text.

Number of steps < 500 is equivalent to 500 > number of steps.

It's a bit weird, but imo not wrong. 500 > steps/day or steps/day < 500 is the same. As long as the big end of the < or > is at the 500 it makes sense. It only doesn't make sense if you literally read 500 > steps/day as "five hundred greater than steps a day" instead of parsing it as math.

This makes me think of a really neat business idea... DoorCook! Where your neighbor is your personal cook! You put in an order and a price range and any "neighbors" within the area can bid on the price.

We synergize our business by avoiding all those pesky regulations like food licenses and let your meal come directly from your loving neighbor.

Yeah but you'll also be eating sausage for every meal of every day for that entire month.

That's what makes it a challenge

Yeah so I did the math. 500 is supposed greater than your number of steps per day.

aka steps per day less than 500

I don't get why people have a problem with this

While it did use the greater-than symbol, it was arranged unconventionally. The way it's written is "500 is greater than steps per day," meaning don't walk too much, which fits with the rest of the author's theme.

'Fraid so. Check your mailbox for the hardhat and a return label for the seatbelt cutter.