BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one to Data Is Beautiful@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 years agoWhere the money islemmy.oneimagemessage-square34fedilinkarrow-up1126arrow-down163
arrow-up163arrow-down1imageWhere the money islemmy.oneBlinkerFluid@lemmy.one to Data Is Beautiful@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square34fedilink
minus-squaredavel [he/him]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up60·2 years agoEveryone knows data is not beautiful when you visualize scalars using area instead of length.
minus-squaremagic_lobster_party@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up25·2 years agoI’m pretty sure it’s by volume, which is even worse
minus-squarebort@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down2·2 years agoI like it. you can visualize sizes with 3 orders of magnitude between them without one being microscopic. What makes this graph shitty, is that the spheres don’t look very 3D.
minus-squareOtakat@reddthat.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·2 years agoI respectfully disagree. If you want to compare orders of magnitude, you should use a logarithmic scale.
minus-squaredavel [he/him]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 years agoYeah these are long-ago settled, 101-level, wikipedia-level data visualization principles.
minus-squarejeffhykin@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 years agoWait like 3D volume? 😬 I was looking at it completely wrong
Everyone knows data is not beautiful when you visualize scalars using area instead of length.
I’m pretty sure it’s by volume, which is even worse
I like it. you can visualize sizes with 3 orders of magnitude between them without one being microscopic.
What makes this graph shitty, is that the spheres don’t look very 3D.
I respectfully disagree. If you want to compare orders of magnitude, you should use a logarithmic scale.
Yeah these are long-ago settled, 101-level, wikipedia-level data visualization principles.
Wait like 3D volume? 😬 I was looking at it completely wrong