HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
This graph making the rounds today is pretty damn funny. Thanks to ghost6303 for the heads up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.
Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny
So there's an offset. When IE use goes to zero, there will still be about 12000 murders.*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.
Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny
*sigh* I hate graphs that make differences look more than they should because they decide to put the axis in an absurd location. Not to mention the market share of IE is conveniently moved to show correlation.
Sorry that was the tight ass teacher in me speaking, the graph is funny
Obviously this graph is supposed to be a joke but I don't mind such graphs. From a scientific perspective I have no problem with scaling and offsetting axes. I've done it myself in a peer reviewed and published paper to show that a trend in experimental data was very close to quadratic but in discrete drops rather than continuous. If I'd displayed the entire range, you wouldn't have been able to see that level of detail unless I blew the image up to a full page. It was clearly labelled on the graph what I'd done.
The question then becomes do you trust your average person to actually look at the scales or just go "derr, this green bar is bigger than that green bar!", which is why it's questionable in graphs intended for mainstream consumption.
What I have a larger problem with is graphs with plot data against each other without mentioning the bazilllion assumptions, so even if you do see a trend the chances are it's completely meaningless. People on both sides of the gun debate fucking love to do this. Plot gun statistics against some sort of crime statistic to show one thing or another, as if NOTHING else happened that might have caused a difference, it must only be the presence or absence of guns that caused the statistics the way to be what they are.
I want to point out that the '94 ban wasn't renewed because the FBI showed that it had made no discernible difference to crime rates. So you are right when it comes to anti-gunners as it has been proven they are full of crap.
Yes, but I'm being critical of people on both sides of the debate. I've just as equally read comments and graphs saying that less guns = more crime, but always comparing cases which are not comparable or ignoring a ton of other information that may be a cause.
Obviously this graph is supposed to be a joke but I don't mind such graphs. From a scientific perspective I have no problem with scaling and offsetting axes. I've done it myself in a peer reviewed and published paper to show that a trend in experimental data was very close to quadratic but in discrete drops rather than continuous. If I'd displayed the entire range, you wouldn't have been able to see that level of detail unless I blew the image up to a full page. It was clearly labelled on the graph what I'd done.