Does Earth have two high-tide bulges on opposite sides? (2014)

The explanation is phenomenal. I particularly like the elevation heat map, which helps me intuitively grasp what is going on.

This raises a question for me though: why do we show the tidal bulge graphic in any educational context? Like OP, the "far bulge" was always the most surprising and difficult-to-grasp part of the image. But this explanation would indicate that the far bulge is almost totally pointless as a concept, given the complexities of the system. Given it's the least intuitive part of the image, it invites additional consideration. But it's all the wrong consideration!

The model would be more useful if it only showed the bulge on the moon side, and excluded the far side bulge. It would still be wildly imprecise, kind of like the orbital model of atoms is wildly imprecise, but at least it would be a slightly more accurate (and useful) initial mental model.

I expect because without the far bulge, 12 hour tides can't be explained. One bulge would mean 24 hour tides. Not that either explanation is actually correct, but the two bulge explanation matches the obseved periodicity, which is all most people would ever need or care to know about tides these days.

I can't for the life of me understand why graduate level oceanography courses would be teaching it though.

If the bulges were caused by water being attracted to the moon, there should not be a "far bulge"?

So how was the existence of a far bulge justified?