Surely no one has any questions about what any of these vague, inconsistent, segregations mean.

Even ignoring the y-axis fuckery, I can only assume that whoever made this graph just divided the minuscule 10-year population growth into even 2-year increments, which is not how data points or graphs work. Why even make a graph for this time span if you only have two real data points?

I get that it is dense, but I want a concise way to show the changes or lack of changes.

My logic was Square=Senate, Heart=House, book=attorney, writing instrument=secretary

Thoughts?

Why would you list contaminants and violations on a scale where bigger is better??

And the whole study of 100 cities divides them into tiers where, "Tier 1 is the highest group and Tier 5 the lowest." It's like they did everything backwards!

Source: https://www.tapwaterdata.com/rankings/cities#city-co-colorado-springs

I know this technically aligns with the political colors of both countries but the fact that it represents opposite sides of the political spectrum with the same color on one graph is... flawed for comprehensibility.

Edit: For some reason people keep assuming I'm an American who knows nothing about Canadian politics and feels the need to baby me through it. Let me be clear, I AM CANADIAN, and I already know all of this.

High Deductable with HSA Family Health Insurance Per Paycheck 647$/pp 8k$ or 401$/pp 13k$

$10k just to see the doctor once

Dental 1k$ per year

Vision 200$ per year

Source

How does the boxes help when organized this way? The raw percentages here make more sense.

1. Why not use the same red-blue left-right color coding that most of the world uses? (Even if you expect a mostly American audience — this is the NY Times after all — you can code it the other direction)

2. Why are the extreme right parties in *lighter* blue?

3. Why is everything from center-right to left the same color in a gradient? How does it ever make sense to have the left the same hue as the right?

4. Green was right there for the Arab parties.

I wanted to do analysis on prediction market accuracy compared to traditional polling. While looking, I spotted what seemed to be a $16,326 bet on the Paxton campaign to win while the odds were 80:20 at the time. That wasn’t the case at all.

That was a $13,224 bet ‘No’ for Paxton, ie that he will lose.

It turns out:
Blue means you bet on Talarico, either yes or no.
Red means you bet on Paxton, either yes or no.
The dollar amount isn’t the amount bet, it’s the number of contracts someone purchased.

At the time of typing, it is $.92 to $.08 for which ever of the four contracts you want. That means if I bet $300, yes and no for Talarico and then do the same for Paxton, the ticker would display:

+$326 in blue (Talarico-Yes)
+$3,750 in blue (Talarico-No)
+$3,750 in red (Paxton-Yes)
+$326 in red (Paxton-No)

One of the most extreme I found was ‘+$3,430’ in red, which turned out to be $274 for a 12.5 scale factor

If you have any questions, let me know. Please be civil, I am only trying to discuss the data and what was displayed. Thanks

If only there was some way of showing how three variables change over time..

Loved the inclusion of explained variance AND R^2.