I discuss it all the time ...

What defines a pixel-based digital image are the pixels. That is, the pixel resolution, or more exactly, the total pixels wide by the total pixels tall, such as 6000x4000 or 24MP.

What defines the file size is a) the data being stored and b) the compression (if any) being used to minimize that total storage. An 8-bit file, all JPEGs, stores more color data than the human eye can actually 'see'. That is, more shades / combinations of Red with Green with Blue than our eyes can actual discern (RGB).

RAW files are 'bigger' for two reasons: a) they are 12- or 14-bit files containing even more data about the RGB colors and b) they're uncompressed.

TIFF files are 'bigger' for two reasons: a) they are typically 16-bit files and b) they're uncompressed.

But, a 24MP JPEG has the same 24-million pixels as the 24MP RAW as the 24MP 16-bit TIFF. The conversion from the sensor's typical 12-bit data stream into the 8-bit JPEG format is typically the largest 'loss' of data ever performed on the image file. The software performing this conversion 'maps' the colors of the higher bit-depth to the same (or closest) color defined by the 8-bit format. The JPEG format is 'compressed' in a fully reversible format, just like ZIP files contain the exact same files when 'inflated' during the extract from the ZIP 'container'.

So, looking at the file size of an image tells you next to nothing relevant about the pixel resolution, nor quality, nor usefulness of a digital image. You need to know the pixel resolution to determine how well the image might fill a target pixel-based display device and / or might print to a given physical size.

Your image here reports 2434x1952, more than enough pixels to fill my 1920px 'wide' display monitor, a screen 21-inches wide. The image would print to about 8-inches at the 300ppi 'gold standard', and would easily print wider at a lower ppi ratio, if desired. Both example usages are based on the pixels of the image, not the bytes.