617
data is beautiful (slrpnk.net)
submitted 3 months ago by blibla@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.world
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mcmodknower@programming.dev 260 points 3 months ago
[-] higgsboson@dubvee.org 31 points 3 months ago

Droppped in to post this. Thank you.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Beat me to it

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 104 points 3 months ago
[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 76 points 3 months ago

I conclude that people are attracted to furries

[-] Strobelt@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Also, all Americans are furry and so, attracted to each other and either viewing or being viewed as the big foot

[-] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

But how does the little spoon factor into all this? Is it being stepped on by the "big foot" like a Lego, or are there other factors at play?

[-] overflowingmemory@links.hackliberty.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

omg this is big brain. Higher population density means higher amount of Bigfoot sightings and furry suits, which means both could be uncorrelated.

oh no ... I realized this is just statistics 101

[-] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 64 points 3 months ago

Now normalize it for population density.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

How does that work? Im not a stat person.

[-] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

There are a number of normalization algorithms. Easiest would be to just divide by the area's population count. That gives you the relative number of bigfoot sightings or fursuits per capita, removing any skews introduced by varyin population size.

Say you have two areas:

Area 1: 100000 people, 1000 fursuits, 500 bigfoot sightings Area 2: 1000 people, 10 fursuits, 5 bigfoot sightings

Without knowing the population size, it looks like more fursuits means more bigfoot sightings. But if we divide by the population size, we get 0.01 fursuits and 0.005 bigfoot sightings per person in both areas.

Hope that helps. ^^

[-] Fermion@feddit.nl 6 points 3 months ago

Simple normalization does amplify signals in low density areas. If a person in a tiny town of 100 reports a bigfoot sighting and another person in an area with 10,000 population also reports a sighting, then with simple normalization the map would show the area with 100 people having 100 times as many big foot sightings per capita as the area with the population of 10k. Someone casually reading the map would erroneously conclude that the tiny town is a bigfoot hotspot and would in general conclude bigfoot clearly prefers rural areas where they can hide in seclusion. When the reality is that the intense signals are artifacts of the sampling/processing methods and both areas have the same number of fursuit wearers.

[-] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

That's the point. To make the low-population area more intense. Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.

[-] Fermion@feddit.nl 3 points 3 months ago

I'm not saying normalization is a bad strategy, just that it, like any other processing technique comes with limitations and requires extra attention to avoid incorrect conclusions when interpreting the results.

Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.

If you were to attempt to trap and tag bigfoots in both areas, would you end up with 100 times as many angry people in a gorilla suit in the small town? No. You would end up with 1 in both areas. So while the tiny town does technically have 100x the density per capita, each region has only one observable suit wearer.

Assuming the distribution of gorilla suit wearers is uniform, you would expect approximately 99 tiny towns with no big foot sightings for every 1 town with a sighting. So if you were to sample random small towns, because the map says big foots live near small towns, you would actually see fewer hairy beasts than your peer who decided to sample areas with higher population density.

If we could have fractional observations, then all this would be a lot more straightforward, but the discrete nature of the subject matter makes the data imherently noisy. Interpreting data involving discrete events is a whole art and usually involves a lot of filtering.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Ah, I understand now, thank you!

[-] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 35 points 3 months ago
[-] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I like how it's relevant not just because they're both about population maps, but also because they're both about furries.

[-] CluckN@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Good to know that all fursuit owners are being tracked 24/7 via satellite.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago

They're just tracking IT data centers as a proxy.

[-] impresario@api.clubsall.com 15 points 3 months ago

So Bigfoot can't cross over the border to Mexico?

[-] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't be allowed back in. I don't think Bigfoot's ever been formally nationalized. Gets back to the border from his Mexican sojourn and is told he can't re-enter legally.

[-] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago

Mexico respects Bigfoot's privacy.

[-] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Really Iowa? Is Bigfoot hiding amongst corn now?

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I just can't believe that in this day and age people still believe in Bigfoot. It's obviously just a Yeti in a gorilla suit.

[-] tranarchist@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

no, it's a gorilla in a gorilla suit in a yeti suit in a gorilla suit

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

There is one fursuit owner being detained at Guantanamo. The CIA and FBI have neither confirmed nor denied whether said person fights the torturers by shouting "HARDER, DADDY"

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
617 points (97.1% liked)

memes

10412 readers
722 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS