[removed]

Read the title. The graphic is comparing the worst single accidents (i.e. the 1977 disaster for aviation) with annual traffic deaths.

Tsunami counts as earthquake I assume?

When you fit data, you must have a model in mind. You don't just take something that seems to fit well. Otherwise, a 547th degree polynomial will do the job, but it's really not useful.

Here, your fit seems to suggest that, when the wind is strong, fossil fuel usage increases again. What is the model, the hypothesis, which would explain that?

Also, have you checked if every coefficient of the model is statistically significant? I'd guess that the 3rd isn't.

My guess for the best fit would be something resembling a logistic function: when the wind tends to infinity, fossil fuels tend to 0. In your model, fossil fuels would tend to infinity, which is... unlikely.

If you don't want to come up with a model, you have solutions: a moving average or a local regression like LOESS, which has the advantage to give a confidence interval.

Conclusion: regressions need to mean something. They must not be chosen without a model, even just hypothetical, in mind.

No way that Aviation is at only 600. There has been 1977 an accident with 2 Boeing 747 on Teneriffa, where nearly 600 died.

600 single Aviation accidents in general since invention is more likely.

TAMU is a goal for lots of students because of School spirit and traditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaal_Reefs#Vaal_Reefs_Tragedy

Mining elevator taken out by a locomotive and plunged over 400m - 104 miners killed. Scary shit.

What the hell happened in that elevator??

So they say that when the wind blows, they can generate up to 63 GW from wind power (that's what capacity means). What's wrong with that? Of course they have to rely on other energy sources when there's no wind.

All of it.

Winning alot of games isnt the same as winning the games that matter. They only have half a championship since WW2. Everyone else on here has multiple

Can we have a similar chart for PV ? Light x Temperature

The issue with rewarding conference championships is non of the conferences are equal. Winning the SEC is not the same as winning the Sunbelt or the Pac12. USC dominating the Pac12 for years on end would get more rewarded when OSU was just as good but split the B1G with UM more.

Sorry but I prefer not to share that, as it will then be clear which pages I am referring to. And my level of knowledge is not visible to a mod anyway. They make decisions on their own terms irregardless. I’m sure you are aware of these issues, it’s hardly a new thing. Wikipedia ceased to be easy to edit long ago.

I agree with the post you're responding to.

A misleading info graphic that explains that it's misleading is still misleading.

Putting these events together in a visualization is suggesting to your consumer that they're comparable, even if you point out why they're not in four different places.

A zoomed in line graph that grossly overestimates changes in the Y axis is still misleading even if the Y axis is clearly labeled. Even if the title of the graph is "Zoomed in Line Graph"

It's a bit confusing, no worries!

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

I like this infographic and found it thought provoking. Some other people just can’t help but to find something to complain about.

The title and thesis of the infographic are, to me, clear: that the number of annual automotive traffic deaths exceeds the largest amount of deaths of ever from a single disaster event in each category.

Though perhaps, now that the issue is raised, it would be more poignant to take something like the worst year of the deaths for each category, instead of the worst single event; the only one of the list I'd expect to get markedly worse from this amendment would be flooding, but it would pre-empt this possible objection. You could, if you like, denote the difference between the worst single event and other events that year with a slightly different color shade in the same box area.

Per the source, it actually was the failure of Banqiao Dam in 1975 and includes deaths due to subsequent diseases and hunger in addition to the initial flood. I can see the perspective that it should be categorized as a flood since it did include one, but the cause was a structural collapse and I put it in the visualization as one because the source (Wikipedia) categorized it that way.

I’ll admit I didn’t know that

No way a structural collapse caused 200k deaths unless it was a dam. In which case it would be a flood.

Edit: Its also disingenuous to say 4 million people died from a flood when it’s the total potential deaths from starvation, cholera, etc for years after.

When a user deletes the post, the post remains but the user shows as "<deleted>". You're seeing this post, which is the original deleted post by u/barra79.

I've been there. Your country is stunningly beautiful. And people were very warm and friendly.

No, of course it's not. But -- of course -- I knew the backgrounds and paths of those classmates who were my friends, as well as friends from high school who had much the same sort of choices. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming this is dispositive: all I said was that the OP's contention it wasn't my experience. If anything, his evidence, with an apparent sample size of 0, is even thinner than mine.