I absolutely love the thought of you sitting at home trying to come up with something to make into a chart and then doing this. Perfect, absolute cinema, thank you, 10/10, would upvote again.
Okay so maybe I’m just being cranky, but isn’t this just data? What makes it beautiful?
You’re missing a data point: r/no .
The data follows the same trend: it goes up up up up down. Beautiful.
Bar charts aren’t beautiful
I can’t imagine titles that include “yesyesyesno”. What am I missing?
Data is ugly I’d say, just a bar plot that looks like it’s made in excel 98
Your y axis should be linear, otherwise might as well just make this a table
Who made this chart? NVIDIA?
This data really is beautiful. Useful? Maybe not. But definitely beautiful
I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on with the y-axis. It’s kinda-logarithmic, I guess? Usually, you use log scale to handle widely-varying values like this, but . . . I guess they varied *too* much, so it needed a discontinuity, too? And log scales can never actually make it down to zero, because of negative inifinity.
But the tiniest number appears to be 1 member, so the scale could have been 10^0 up to 10^7, with six steps in between, totally doable. But no . . .
13 comments
I absolutely love the thought of you sitting at home trying to come up with something to make into a chart and then doing this. Perfect, absolute cinema, thank you, 10/10, would upvote again.
Okay so maybe I’m just being cranky, but isn’t this just data? What makes it beautiful?
You’re missing a data point: r/no .
The data follows the same trend: it goes up up up up down. Beautiful.
Bar charts aren’t beautiful
I can’t imagine titles that include “yesyesyesno”. What am I missing?
Data is ugly I’d say, just a bar plot that looks like it’s made in excel 98
Your y axis should be linear, otherwise might as well just make this a table
Who made this chart? NVIDIA?
This data really is beautiful. Useful? Maybe not. But definitely beautiful
I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on with the y-axis. It’s kinda-logarithmic, I guess? Usually, you use log scale to handle widely-varying values like this, but . . . I guess they varied *too* much, so it needed a discontinuity, too? And log scales can never actually make it down to zero, because of negative inifinity.
But the tiniest number appears to be 1 member, so the scale could have been 10^0 up to 10^7, with six steps in between, totally doable. But no . . .
not me checking if I’m in the most popular one
I love how pointless this is
Comments are closed.