• strawberry@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    9 months ago

    no one reads that. didn’t even bother to look. should be more transparent IMO but whatever

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you don’t how are you supposed to know what information it’s telling you? It could shades of purple for all you know.

      • GreyEyedGhost
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you realize how most people act and think, you can tell them lies while telling the truth. Which is what people are usually trying to do when they start graphs away from zero.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Or it’s removing white space so you can actually see the difference in the data. Like stocks, if stocks started at zero, you wouldn’t be able to see day to day or even a week to week difference…. Not everything can be covered by general rules.

          You can only properly understand the data by reading it, if you glance at it and make assumptions and conclusions, that only speaks volumes about yourself.

          • GreyEyedGhost
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            If counting from 1 to eleven is too hard for you, I don’t think observing that the scale is from 7 to 11 is within your grasp. So, why do this. Absolutely, there are reasons to not start a scale from zero, stocks are a great example, but I don’t think those reasons apply to this graph or the information they’re trying to convey.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah… it just doesn’t work with the given information, there is actually a reason why they specifically posted the other one….

      • strawberry@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        well yea but this also isn’t like important stuff so I didn’t bother looking

          • strawberry@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            you say that as if everyone analyses every aspect of everything they encounter. most people will glance at the graph, see a huge jump, and not look into it more. that’s why statistics are so easy to falsify or make misleading

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              If you want to engage in a conversation or use that information, yes you should properly read it. What could possibly be added to a discussion otherwise? Just having people have to correct and call out your bullshit? Lmfao.

              Since you are engaging in comments within a post about this, everyone would assume you read the graph properly, since you obviously can’t add to a conversation without actually knowing the information.

              So yes, leave your idiocy elsewhere next time, read the shit, or don’t add your opinion, really simple concept.