Bad Graphs

[Brightonian]

The Guardian's criticising this pork pie chart made by the Sun's boffins:


Also referencing Twitter account @graphcrimes which I hadn't come across.

[WFJ]

The Guardian's criticising this pork pie chart made by the Sun's boffins:


Also referencing Twitter account @graphcrimes which I hadn't come across.

Mustard with a pork pie? Chutney or onion relish surely.

[Rich Scopie]

The Guardian's criticising this pork pie chart made by the Sun's boffins:


Also referencing Twitter account @graphcrimes which I hadn't come across.

Mustard with a pork pie? Chutney or onion relish surely.

Mushy peas. Every time. (Mint sauce optional.)

[monkey]

I like mustard wit a pork pie.

[nekomatic]

I prefer it without one.

Quite a volte face for the Sun to acknowledge that a giant porky pie is a suitable metaphor for Boris Johnson’s premiership though.

[dyqik]

I prefer it without one.

Quite a volte face for the Sun to acknowledge that a giant porky pie is a suitable metaphor for Boris Johnson’s premiership though.

A liberal dose of mustard, chutney etc. is probably only way most people could swallow Johnson's pork pies.

The exceptions being most UK newspaper editors.

[dyqik]

Not strictly speaking a bad graph, but I do feel that the formatting of the Y-axis units could confuse the reader.

[basementer]

Not strictly speaking a bad graph, but I do feel that the formatting of the Y-axis units could confuse the reader.

Brilliant.

[Sciolus]

Once, or twice for some Christians.

[dyqik]

Once, or twice for some Christians.

Arguably, many babies aren't named until after they are born, either informally, and definitely formally when the birth is registered or they are christened.

So the number of babies born while named Miles will be somewhat less than the number of people called Miles.

[shpalman]

Once, or twice for some Christians.

Arguably, many babies aren't named until after they are born, either informally, and definitely formally when the birth is registered or they are christened.

So the number of babies born while named Miles will be somewhat less than the number of people called Miles.

Well YMMV.

[jimbob]

Once, or twice for some Christians.

Arguably, many babies aren't named until after they are born, either informally, and definitely formally when the birth is registered or they are christened.

So the number of babies born while named Miles will be somewhat less than the number of people called Miles.

Well YMMV.

[monkey]

Once, or twice for some Christians.

Arguably, many babies aren't named until after they are born, either informally, and definitely formally when the birth is registered or they are christened.

So the number of babies born while named Miles will be somewhat less than the number of people called Miles.

Well YMMV.

I was just trying to find the volume of a newborn so I could estimate Miles per gallon. I failed*.

I think you could do an estimate if you know the density of a baby, because weights are recorded. That's 1.06–1.07 g/cm^3 apparently. But then I stopped because I got distracted.


*Was planning on dividing the number of Mileses by the total volume of babies.

[dyqik]

I think you could do an estimate if you know the density of a baby, because weights are recorded. That's 1.06–1.07 g/cm^3 apparently.

And also the perfect opportunity to cite Nirvana's Nevermind.

[Banana]

This https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/newspoll ... -albanese/ is getting a lot of airtime in Australia this morning for being a very bad pie chart

edit: screwed the link

[tom p]

Arguably, many babies aren't named until after they are born, either informally, and definitely formally when the birth is registered or they are christened.

So the number of babies born while named Miles will be somewhat less than the number of people called Miles.

Well YMMV.

I was just trying to find the volume of a newborn so I could estimate Miles per gallon. I failed*.

I think you could do an estimate if you know the density of a baby, because weights are recorded. That's 1.06–1.07 g/cm^3 apparently. But then I stopped because I got distracted.


*Was planning on dividing the number of Mileses by the total volume of babies.

Typically a baby, crown-to-heel will be about 50cm.
Head circumference is ~35cm, and that's slightly more than the circumference of the torso.
Roughly speaking, if you were to cut off the arms and fix them to the pelvis, like the baby had 4 legs, then you'd have a sphere of circumference 35cm atop a cylinder of circumference 30cm & height 50cm.

[bob sterman]

I was just trying to find the volume of a newborn so I could estimate Miles per gallon. I failed*.

In contrast - I was looking to see How often people called Miles play "Born in the USA"?

Miles Davis definitely did some sessions with Steven Van Zandt and The Boss - but so far I've found no conclusive evidence. Seems unlikely.

[IvanV]

I was just trying to find the volume of a newborn so I could estimate Miles per gallon. I failed*.

I think you could do an estimate if you know the density of a baby, because weights are recorded. That's 1.06–1.07 g/cm^3 apparently. But then I stopped because I got distracted.

*Was planning on dividing the number of Mileses by the total volume of babies.

Let me satisfy you.

Average baby mass around 3.5kg from US sources.

Density is about 1.03. So 3.4 litres, 0.76 UK gallons or 0.9 US gallons.

I differ from you on density. I see first google hit says 1.06-1.07 for the "FFM density", but FFM stands for Fat Free Mass. Did they boil down some babies to assess that? The actual density depends upon how much fat there is as a proportion of total body mass, which varies. But 1.03 is reported as an average in a paper that got it experimentally back in the 1960s.

What does density mean when we assess it for a human? Humans tend to float in water, when they aren't drowning, because they have some gas in their lungs, and other internal cavities which reduces the density of their overall body envelope to below 1. The 1.03 figure is presumably excluding that effect.

To calculate mpg we need to know the birthrate of total babies in the population of interest, as well as the (future) Miles.

There are currently about 3.6 million babies per year in the US, or 3.23 million US gallons. Reading off the graph above, Miles are about 0.56 per hour or 4,900 per year.

That comes out to 0.0015 Miles per (US) gallon.

[Nero]

My first name is Myles. I think I might have just swerved the above.

[monkey]

I was just trying to find the volume of a newborn so I could estimate Miles per gallon. I failed*.

I think you could do an estimate if you know the density of a baby, because weights are recorded. That's 1.06–1.07 g/cm^3 apparently. But then I stopped because I got distracted.

*Was planning on dividing the number of Mileses by the total volume of babies.

Let me satisfy you.

Average baby mass around 3.5kg from US sources.

Density is about 1.03. So 3.4 litres, 0.76 UK gallons or 0.9 US gallons.

I differ from you on density. I see first google hit says 1.06-1.07 for the "FFM density", but FFM stands for Fat Free Mass. Did they boil down some babies to assess that? The actual density depends upon how much fat there is as a proportion of total body mass, which varies. But 1.03 is reported as an average in a paper that got it experimentally back in the 1960s.

What does density mean when we assess it for a human? Humans tend to float in water, when they aren't drowning, because they have some gas in their lungs, and other internal cavities which reduces the density of their overall body envelope to below 1. The 1.03 figure is presumably excluding that effect.

To calculate mpg we need to know the birthrate of total babies in the population of interest, as well as the (future) Miles.

There are currently about 3.6 million babies per year in the US, or 3.23 million US gallons. Reading off the graph above, Miles are about 0.56 per hour or 4,900 per year.

That comes out to 0.0015 Miles per (US) gallon.

Awesome. Thank you very much.

[shpalman]

Roughly speaking, if you were to cut off the arms and fix them to the pelvis, like the baby had 4 legs, then you'd have a sphere of circumference 35cm atop a cylinder of circumference 30cm & height 50cm.

I differ from you on density. I see first google hit says 1.06-1.07 for the "FFM density", but FFM stands for Fat Free Mass. Did they boil down some babies to assess that?

Ok then for how long in the oven?

[tom p]

Roughly speaking, if you were to cut off the arms and fix them to the pelvis, like the baby had 4 legs, then you'd have a sphere of circumference 35cm atop a cylinder of circumference 30cm & height 50cm.

I differ from you on density. I see first google hit says 1.06-1.07 for the "FFM density", but FFM stands for Fat Free Mass. Did they boil down some babies to assess that?

Ok then for how long in the oven?

At a standard 20mins for 450g + 20 mins @ 180c, you're looking at about 3 hours. Less for rare

[shpalman]

Roughly speaking, if you were to cut off the arms and fix them to the pelvis, like the baby had 4 legs, then you'd have a sphere of circumference 35cm atop a cylinder of circumference 30cm & height 50cm.

I differ from you on density. I see first google hit says 1.06-1.07 for the "FFM density", but FFM stands for Fat Free Mass. Did they boil down some babies to assess that?

Ok then for how long in the oven?

At a standard 20mins for 450g + 20 mins @ 180c, you're looking at about 3 hours. Less for rare

This is why people are always so f.cking obsessed with weights* of babies.

[tom p]

Exactly - nobody wants an overdone roast baby, after all

[dyqik]

Reddit's Data Is Ugly sub is relevant for this thread.