Difference between revisions of "Talk:2031: Pie Charts"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
Any explanation of the title text? An example of the clipart would be great. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.54|172.68.47.54]] 00:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 
Any explanation of the title text? An example of the clipart would be great. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.54|172.68.47.54]] 00:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
:I wouldn't take it too literally. Clipart is just easy to use, cheap-looking iconography. I highly doubt there's clipart of cosmologists. You could just put in little stick figures saying like "the curvature of the space here is unusual" and you'd get the same effect. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.147|162.158.62.147]] 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  
 
I don't think there is a method to the madness guys, it looks like he just took an editor's warp tool and held it in place. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 14:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 
I don't think there is a method to the madness guys, it looks like he just took an editor's warp tool and held it in place. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 14:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 13 August 2018

I wonder if it is a coincidence that this came out the same week as Android Pie Zachweix (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Zachweix seems to want to share this link: Fox News --NeatNit (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the link? The link in that page is exactly the type of pie chart to which he is referring Zachweix (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
But that's the wrong place to put it. I'm not even sure that it fits anywhere in the article, but it definitely doesn't fit in the "who created this page" part of the "this page is incomplete" tag. --NeatNit (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Wrong just in the sense that it's a temporary place, but I think it adds to the humor of referring to Fox News in the "who created this page" piece. It might be appropriate to add it to a section of real world examples of published pie charts that fail the "mostly 100%" test (aside from trivial rounding errors). -boB (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not a hyperbolic plane. It's more like a cone, but with more than 360 degrees instead of less. I don't know the proper term for it. It has curvature zero everywhere except the center, which is a singularity. DanielLC (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Any explanation of the title text? An example of the clipart would be great. 172.68.47.54 00:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it too literally. Clipart is just easy to use, cheap-looking iconography. I highly doubt there's clipart of cosmologists. You could just put in little stick figures saying like "the curvature of the space here is unusual" and you'd get the same effect. 162.158.62.147 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a method to the madness guys, it looks like he just took an editor's warp tool and held it in place. 172.68.59.24 14:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. Edward Tufte on Pie Charts

Maybe we should also mention what the dodfather of visualization has to say on pie charts: Edward Tufte gives the pie chart a more succinct and decisive treatment in "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information": A table is nearly always better than a dumb pie chart; the only worse design than a pie chart is several of them, for then the viewer is asked to compare quantities located in spatial disarray both within and between charts [...] Given their low density and failure to order numbers along a visual dimension, pie charts should never be used. (Tufte: "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information", quoted by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2991062 )