Bad Graphs

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by Brightonian » Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:05 pm

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

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

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by WFJ » Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:24 pm

Brightonian wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:05 pm
The Guardian's criticising this pork pie chart made by the Sun's boffins:
Image

Also referencing Twitter account @graphcrimes which I hadn't come across.
Mustard with a pork pie? Chutney or onion relish surely.

User avatar
Rich Scopie
Snowbonk
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:21 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by Rich Scopie » Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:08 am

WFJ wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:24 pm
Brightonian wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:05 pm
The Guardian's criticising this pork pie chart made by the Sun's boffins:
Image

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.)
It first was a rumour dismissed as a lie, but then came the evidence none could deny:
a double page spread in the Sunday Express — the Russians are running the DHSS!

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by monkey » Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:06 pm

I like mustard wit a pork pie.

User avatar
nekomatic
Dorkwood
Posts: 1376
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by nekomatic » Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:55 pm

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.
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by dyqik » Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:14 pm

nekomatic wrote:
Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:55 pm
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.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:07 pm

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

Image

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: 8024, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by basementer » Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:25 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:07 pm
Not strictly speaking a bad graph, but I do feel that the formatting of the Y-axis units could confuse the reader.

Image
Brilliant.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by Sciolus » Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:00 pm

Once, or twice for some Christians.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:00 pm
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.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by shpalman » Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:11 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:00 pm
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.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by jimbob » Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:14 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:11 pm
dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:00 pm
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.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by monkey » Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:11 pm
dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:00 pm
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.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:57 pm

monkey wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm
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.

User avatar
Banana
Gray Pubic
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:25 am
Location: Far South

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by Banana » Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:25 am

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
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by tom p » Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:05 pm

monkey wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm
shpalman wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:11 pm
dyqik wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm


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.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by bob sterman » Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:11 pm

monkey wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm
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
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by IvanV » Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:33 pm

monkey wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm
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
Clardic Fug
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by Nero » Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:07 pm

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

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by monkey » Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:46 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:33 pm
monkey wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:35 pm
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.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by shpalman » Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:17 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:05 pm
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.
IvanV wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:33 pm
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?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by tom p » Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:34 pm

shpalman wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:17 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:05 pm
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.
IvanV wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:33 pm
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

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by shpalman » Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:51 pm

tom p wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:34 pm
shpalman wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:17 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:05 pm
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.
IvanV wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:33 pm
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.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by tom p » Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:30 pm

Exactly - nobody wants an overdone roast baby, after all

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Bad Graphs

Post by dyqik » Mon Mar 07, 2022 10:28 pm

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

Post Reply