graphspergers - the graphs and quantitative visualization thread

can we include process diagrams y/n

y, definitely. Anything that is on-topic at Ask E.T. is on-topic here. But we can also cover really bad graphs that just look cool when high.

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/poster_OrigMinard.gif

lol u brought up ET and I posted that we are visualization bros

lol tufte

http://lastgraph.aeracode.org/

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4891/ic5096vy1.gif

Here is my bro IC 5096. The black lines are contours of constant surface brightness of an image taken on a telescope outside Sydney in 1997. The red lines are my model galaxy, which is supposed to match the black lines. It does OK.

The axes are in units of arcsec, which is an angle rather than a distance. 1 arcsec = 1/3600th of a degree (i.e. not far). This galaxy is 40 Mpc = 130 465 450 light years away. At this distance 50 arcsec corresponds to about 10 kpc = 30 000 light years. This is about the distance from us to the centre of the Milky Way.

lol it's a vagina

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/poster_cyclogram_big.gif

I have this on my living room wall. As ET would say, it is an image which rewards careful study (and not a 705x363px GIF).

It does look a bit vajayjay. Astrophysics is full of them. Here is another, which is called "the finger of god":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/images/410169ab.2.jpg

Caek can you explain the Autistic Spectrum graph or gimme a link to the article it's from?

http://i22.tinypic.com/29ks9ys.jpg

That finger of god thing is what a perfectly spherical cluster of galaxies at a very large distance ends up looking like from Earth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/full/410169a0.html

This redshift-space anisotropy should cause two characteristic effects, operating respectively on small and large scales. On small scales, random orbital velocities within galaxy groups cause an apparent radial smearing, known as 'fingers of God'. Of greater interest is the large-scale effect; if cosmological structure forms by gravitational collapse, there should exist coherent infall velocities, and the effect of these is to cause an apparent flattening of structures along the line of sight.

bong hit time.

http://i21.tinypic.com/eq2gj7.png

nathan's famous contest winners:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/1106150394_3084623ad6_o.jpg

my commute home by bicycle:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2230/1638159993_528b8ae810.jpg

from tracer hand:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2058/1839391132_d4c011e7e6.jpg

nathan's famous contest winners:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/1106150394_3084623ad6_o.jpg

my commute home by bicycle:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2230/1638159993_528b8ae810.jpg

from tracer hand:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2058/1839391132_d4c011e7e6.jpg

xpost to NV, Found it on GIS. Taken from http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v11/n1/full/4001750a.html (let me know if you don't have an institutional subscription and want to read the paper).

Suicides on the Golden Gate by location. There are three very clear Gaussian peaks on this, and one day I am going to fit them using Bayesian statistics and win the Nobel prize for trivializing mental illness.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/10/30/mn_suicide30_loc_tt.gif

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/10/30/MNG2NFF7KI1.DTL&o=2

xp

Okay cheers - I'm guessing from the the magazine title its probably pitched at a level a bit beyond my needs/understanding tho.

this thread is more amazing than i even imagined

Strong peak in the centre facing toward the city, broad peak around the SF tower, secondary broad peak on the SF side for people too sad to walk out over the water : (, shadow peak facing out to the ocean, peak facing the city by Marin tower.

xpost, yes. Looks very technical. They seem to be looking for statistically significant genes for autism rather than talking about the psychology, which might be a bit more accessible.

Powerpoint Gettysburg Address:

http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/img005.gif

http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/

Nathan's Famous Graph is dope.

http://ej.iop.org/images/1742-5468/2006/02/P02006/Full/1773001.jpg

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-search=37150849.1/1742-5468/2006/02/P02006

Also on the arXiv pre-editing for IOP style if you want to read it and don't have an institutional sub: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511215

http://ej.iop.org/images/1742-5468/2006/02/P02006/Full/1773003.jpg

Figure 2. A collection of adjacent k = 3 k cliques centring on the rapper RZA found using the clique percolation method after the weighted edge disparity algorithm is run for X = 50. The community has red edges and sits over the network of all neighbours of the nodes in the community. All of the rappers with several exceptions such as Chuck D, Isaac Hayes, and Chris Rock are directly or indirectly affiliated with the Wu-Tang supergroup and their music labels. The highly clustered rappers in the middle of the diagram are the core members of the original Wu-Tang Clan group (GZA, RZA, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Method Man, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Inspectah Deck, Masta Killa, U-God). Plotted with the Kamada-Kawai graphing algorithm.

OK, this is starting to get like Boing Boing, so I am going to stop for now.

that one is v pretty

OK, two more. Complete map of the universe:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/

and finally, the reason why I need to stop going through my bookmarks looking for graphs and get back to work: the physics job market.

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/5404physics.gif

The universe got resized : ( Click link for the full-resolution awesomeness.

whoaa

Individual sheets without horizontal axes plotted, suitable for printing and taping together

on the back of my bathroom door opposite the bog in my old house. Good pooping.

http://www.isi.edu/ant/address/it.15.all.16-subnet_stats.3px-per-point.annotated.png
census of the internet

(anybody who posts the xkcd drawing gets a slap)

also I think 114 and 115 got allocated to asia recently

Anything from xkcd on this thread gets a slap.

When I saw this thread title I thought of this thing that was on Metafilter the other day:

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/jpcurve.png

What is a negative unemployment rate? Unfilled jobs/people?

I think there's a negative correlation between inflation and the unemployment rate so they've reversed the unemployment axis for some reason: maybe to illustrate the similarity of the shape.

Ah, so by "(Minus) unemployment rate" they mean "unemployment rate x -1". In which case:

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6347/japanzl6.jpg

Hmm.

Actually the inflation axis looks a bit odd as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Engineering_and_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams%2C_drawings%2C_and_maps

caek u do astrophysics? I work for ApJ.

I could post a lot of graphs and visuals but I would be breaking copyright big time.

will u accept my paper y/n? Actually, it's going to MNRAS because of page charges ; ) Are you in production or editorial or marketing? I used to work in editorial for IoP in Bristol.

Posting figures = fair use (probably), and most of them are on the arXiv anyway, surely.

lol IOP... they're taking our jobs! I work for the UofC Press, on peer review and production. My old boss just accepted a position at IOP in the states, I'm hoping to get headhunted by him eventually :D

You're probably right about the figures, but I'd rather not chance it. It'd be kind of a shitty thing to bring down the credibility of the AAS!

I was on peer review and development ("publishing editor") for Journal of Physics A. IoP in the US is in Philadelphia, right? I never got a trip there out of that job, but I did get ones to San Francisco, Pisa and Bangalore, so it wasn't all bad.

As far as I know they're mostly in Philly, but the story is a new office is opening in DC, which is where my former boss is going.

Think I can get away with this one, though I am no physicist so I have no idea what it's about beyond pretty colors...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1122/653521560_09b57a1062.jpg

Isn't that the Great Wall/Coma Cluster thingy on the Map Of Universe jpg?

Might just be the Orion Nebula, mind.

analysis of stereolab riffs:
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/6635/labrc1.gif

It's probably a galaxy cluster. Contours are probably the same object at another wavelength, e.g. X-ray, which is a good thing to look at clusters in. Distance scale is much too small for the Great Wall and too large for a nebula.

The graph I have been futzing with for two weeks. I want all 30 lines to flat and at y = 0.0.

This is what it looked like on Monday:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9071/residualszp0.gif

Tuesday:

(link removed)

Today:

(link removed)

I'm here to tell you that this is the scientific enterprise. It's some bullshit.

What is your model made of? What is it supposed to be used for when it works?

I make models of disk galaxies. They are ones that happen to be oriented edge-on to us so they look more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy (but even more edge-on) than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_81. This makes it harder to work out whether they have spiral structure or bars than ones that are face-on, which you can just look at.

The idea is I take an image of the edge-on galaxy, add up the mass along the line of sight and predict how the stars in a perfectly asymmetric galaxy with that mass distribution would move. I then compare this to measurements of the stars movement (I will show these soon). If I can't get, e.g. model and data velocity-radius curve to match in the central region then I can conclude that the galaxy is not perfectly axisymmetric and probably has a bar. Another product of this fitting process is the mass-to-light ratio. If M/L > 1 then we either have stars heavier than our sun for the amount of light they produce -- or dark matter.

That is the big idea, anyway. In practice I end up doing things like what I've been up to for the past fortnight, which is basically dealing with a shortcoming of my data, which is good in some regards, but poorly calibrated. This involves futzing around with numbers until my lines match the lines for the same objects published by the big, very accurately calibrated surveys.

(link removed)

^^^ example of comparing my the velocity curve of my mass models to the data. That's a pretty good fit. M/L is worryingly high, but I know why that is. I need to regenerate all these plots.

What do you use to make your figures, caek? I do a lot of work on graphics, mostly because it seems there is a sizable group of authors using plotting software that they wrote themselves, and the fonts and/or colorspace get messed up. Also, IDL can eat my balls.

I use IDL : (

Ahahah I thought so! :) The big thing is that in my experience, IDL does not know the difference between RGB and CMYK. It may say it does, but it doesn't.

Pretty much all astrophysicists do. There are movements toward Python, mainly coming from the Hubble dudes, but there is an awful lot of entrenched code. I'm not convinced Python's graphics capabilities will make journals' lives a lot easier anyway, although it is a much nicer language.

I'm going to redraw my figures for publication in Illustrator. It's what Tufte would do.

Yeah, it has a very, very eccentric colour system, although in 1993 it was pretty amazing.

It is presumably why my pure white backgrounds come out off-white when converted to a GIF by Preview.app.

Working with your stuff in Illustrator is a good idea. Convert those fonts to outlines!

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/pill.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/albaalba/ilx/Picture1-1.png

Last three months' listening from LastGraph

(link removed)

So we signed off on those flat lines, and now I have to do error analysis (to figure out the error in my correction). This white line on this graph (not mine) is my life right now:

(link removed)

(link removed)

The other thing I am doing at the moment. The thing in the pink circle is one of the galaxies I am interested in. The big star to its right is going to ruin my day tomorrow.

More rap graphs:

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/

For the record, the original Last.fm graphs were made by Lee Byron (http://megamu.com/lastfm/ and http://centripetalnotion.com/2007/05/18/19:24:07/)

http://i22.tinypic.com/29ks9ys.jpg

surely the average height of the WTC would be lower in 2001, if measured monthly over the whole year.

Well, that's obviously Fiscal Year 2001 (trade center, get it?), that ended on Sept 30th. That is why the difference on such a small graph is almost unnoticeable.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3050/residualsjr9.gif

lol science

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/821/picture1cp6.png

That, my friends, is discretization and it's a bitch.

that hurts to look at

it hurts my soul.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture1-2.png

That is a weird way of looking at my model galaxy. Smooth.

And here are a couple of graphs I did for a film (supposed to be bad)

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/graph.png

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/pie.png

And I forgot to post this when I started this thread, which you'll have seen if you're a fan of uppers

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/speed3.gif

http://blog.iso50.com/?p=1024

http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/burkina.jpg

http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/somalia.jpg

way to undermine your credibility, dude

I made a sweet bubble plot today!!!

jpgs or it's not true

does anyone have any more graphs that look like vajayays, pls email me thx

i have some! i made these.

RAINBOW:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/13.png

STD GAMMA II
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/13-1.png

which scheme do you prefer? they both look fine printed b/w, which is one concern.

Some group placed little white flags on our quad, each for "at least" 5 Iraqis dead, and little red flags, each for "at least" 5 Americans dead, from the Iraq war. The red flags are mostly clustered in a tidy area in front of the sign with our school's name on it, and the white flags stretch on for several blocks. It is pressing my art buttons, my math buttons, and my social justice buttons all at the same time.

Here is the first flickr photo I could find of it.

This may be old news, but wau Songchart

Number of soldiers riding away, grouped by metallurgical composition
Effect of Time on Perceived Relative Distance of Troubles

What kind of chart would you use to show, say, technological lag?

eg. you want to show, visually, a timeline of when the 486 became standard, then the pentium, then the p2... and then show when your company adapted the 486, ten the pentium, etc... and dsplay how long each took?

and, how the fuck do i make excel make whatever you recommend?

a personal favourite:

http://base58.com/ilx/opinionsvsrelevance.gif

xp: opportunity to procrastinate, yay. Two options.

One is to plot the year of release against the year of adoption. The further above the line y = x the points are, the later it was adopted. You'd probably label the points with, e.g. "Pentium" or whatever rather than just put crosses.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture1-3.png

Another is to plot the lag before adoption (i.e. adoption - release). The further above y = 0 the later the adoption.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2.png

does this guy know how to party or what

you, sir, are made of heroism.

i think i am going to go with the first one, btw... just figuring out how to make it. any hot chart-makin' tips?

Uh, don't use Excel.

Sorry. Actually, that should be pretty easy in Excel. Set up three columns of data:

1988 1998 1988

1992 1993 1992

1994 1995 1994

1995 1998 1995

1998 2000 1998

2003 2007 2003

Then plot column 1 (release) vs column 2 (adoption) as points and column 1 vs. column 3 (release again) as a dotted line.

That may be a retarded way of doing it in Excel. I haven't used it since the Pentium II.

http://b3ta.com/challenge/graphs/

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/6686/1205356238/yourmum.GIF

in your face, positive terms:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/NGC_3957-neg.gif

lol postive

hey, dan m, why has AJ gone to IOP but not ApJ? What is up with that?

Still working on this paper by the way : (

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture1-6.png

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2-3.png

Black circles = stars I mask out
Green ellipse = where everyone else says you find half the light
Red ellipse = where I say you find it

Curses.

Aren't those like exactly the same surface? What's the problem?

yeah, they're pretty much identical areas, but mine is narrower because my exposures were longer than they others are so I see more of the disk. This means that when I measure how flat the galaxy is it looks flatter than it does to everyone else. It's not a big deal at the end of the day, I just wish life was simpler.

Finished my poster for conference in Padua:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/padua-poster.gif

To be printed at A0

i was bored enough to make this quantitative visualisation

http://base58.com/images/lfmartistsnations.png

A _massive_ fuck you to this graph, which took me seven days to get right.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture2-5.png

(Cause of the problem: a misprint in equation 7 of Nap0litano et al. 2003. If I ever see that mother fucker I am going to give him a slap.)

Everything in this blog to thread: http://infosthetics.com/

that is a beautiful poster, caek! did you do it in illustrator?

yes, I love Illustrator.

I asked for it to be installed on my new work machine and they told me I could get Inkscape. Hahahahahahahahaahahahhahhhahaa.

I didn't know you were working on there is no dark matter research until I read that poster. Hooray caek!! dark matter is some suspect shit.

its real ive seen it

listen man I am a lay person who reads magazines my opinions are informed

There is there is no dark matter research, but I wouldn't say I was part of that. I'm more, "OK, dark matter works well on large scales, but things get problematic when you throw some visible matter into the mix, and this is precisely how problematic...".

There's no question that there are discrepancies between the amount of visible mass and the speed with which we see things move (e.g. stars in galaxies). That is an empirical fact that everyone agrees on and it's the observational motivation for "invisible matter that makes things move fast", i.e. dark matter. (The other observational motivation is that time jhosh saw it.)

The other way to explain these disceprancies is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which is modifications to Newtonian Gravity on very large scales. If you're interested then a good chatty introductions to the merits of the two is James Binney's 2003 address to the IAU in Sydney, which you can read here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310219v2.

Basically, my understanding is that both both dark matter and MOND are fits to data rather than predictions motivated by theories. E.g. Dark matter would probably not have dropped out of theories of particle physics or field theory unless cosmologists had told particle theory people to go looking for it. But dark matter in particular works very well in a lot of situations.

I confront the predictions of dark matter with observations of rotation in galaxies, and they don't match, so the question is what's the problem. Perhaps dark matter is just plain wrong. More likely, I think, is that the models of dark matter (which is simple stuff in itself) do not correctly incorporate "baryonic physics" (things like star formation, black holes, feedback, hydrodynamics, etc. which are all terribly complicated). So on scales where these processes are important, like individual galaxies, things break down.

Dark energy is another matter though. That's some bullshit right there.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture5.png

Here's me confronting some predictions with some observations. Each plot shows the speed at which the stars in a galaxy are rotating (in km/s on the vertical axis) as a function of distance from the centre (in weird units you don't need to care about). The observations are the points. The red lines are the predictions of models. Above each plot are the parameters of those models. The first number is the number of solar masses we ascribe to each unit of solar light we see. The second number is the amount of dark matter (in units of solar masses and then logarithmed for those of you playing along at home).

So the point it this:

Take the top left plot. The first number is 0.5 so we're saying each sun we can see weighs half as much as our sun. And we've got a 1 with ten 0s after it dark matter. And the model does not rotate as quickly as the real galaxy.

So we add more dark matter (plots to the right) and more visible matter (plots to the bottom) until we get the best fit. The best fit gives us an estimate of the amount of dark matter present. The best fit here is probably about 1 with twelve 0s dark matter.

Does this guy know how to party or what?!

Today I plotted 3,330 graphs. 30 galaxies, 111 for each galaxy.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOW.jpg

My supervisor has been away for a week, so I printed them all out (ran to 50 pages), wrote "Welcome back, here's 3 x 10^3 graphs, see you at 10am to discuss them." That will teach him to get on my back about my progress.

I was just reading the new scientist story on how another possible explanation for the discrepancies could be that the copernican assumptions of our postal code being somewhere in a universal kansas are incorrect, or at least the assumptions about the attributes of said kansas

yes, that would do it. again though, all these are post facto fits to observations and not predictions : (

My program is going to take ten days to run for one graph.

Sort of bragging, but mainly I just write shitty code.

i made a really excellent graph this weekend but i cannot post it becuz it was for work. i managed to get like five pgs of text into one easy-to-read bar graph

making charts and graphs is like my favorite part of my job

BOO YA

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/jamchi2.png

(two months of my life)

btw, ur graph is v. pretty

An early version of my model

http://i44.tinypic.com/33ww5yb.jpg

final version will look way different but hey

that's cool, but needs you get good and drunk and do stuff to it in fifteen minutes

(sounds like my wife etc.)

hat tip to dan m? http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog/science/000399.html

tufte up in this muthafucka

lol structure of the universe

http://sdss.physics.nyu.edu/vagc/shells.gif

universe is made of shells

have you heard that new song by the boxy bulges, "dark matter & bars"?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/Sen_Voinovich_Had_us_at_PacMan.html

lol bright galaxies spin faster, but one type of galaxy (the red ones) spins faster at a given luminosity than normal ones (the blue ones)

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/tf4.gif

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/the-visual-miscellaneum/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/billion_dollar_960.gif

want to see some fucking beautiful display holy shits http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92

ha i was just watching this. and i saw it quite a long time ago during a TED addiction phase. amazing shyt.

incredible how similar and middle class most of the planet is

love that dude

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20227041.500/mg20227041.500-1_1000.jpg

just doing mah thing

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture8.png
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture9.png

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/Picture11.png

same surface viewed in two different projections. who knew?!

i don't know if somebody posted this already, but: snow morphology!
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/morphologydiagram.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/ngc5746_pvd.jpg

colour scheme IN YOUR FACE

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/03/21/slope.gifhttp://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/03/21/slope.gifhttp://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/03/21/slope.gif

2

Wheeeeeeeeeeee!
that is all I have to contribute

well obv 2. f(x) = x^2 and the differential is 2x...

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/6a00e0098226918833012876674340970c-800wi.jpg

as E.T. would say, this thing is rich with information and repays careful study

That's incredible. Do you have a larger version, or the 2009 one?

Sorry, just realized that I could get a larger one if I opened that one first - thanks

only thing slightly sus about that graph is apparently the uk is almost exactly average both in its healthcare spending and life expectancy.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzmiozA8Ex1qbo6leo1_500.jpg

^ rogermexico likes this

    
                          Figure 1:  Data Feature Vector
          +-----------------------------------------------------------+
         -|                               *                           |
         S|                              * *                          |
          |                              * *                          |
         t|                             *   **                        |
          |                             *     *                       |
         r|                            *       *                      |
          |                           *        *                      |
         e|                          *          *                     |
          |                         *            *                    |
         n|                      *                 *              *  *|
          |                   *                       *  *  *  *      |
         t|             *  *                                          |
          |       *  *                                                |
         h|    *                                                      |
         -| *                                                         |
          +---------+-----------------+---------------------+---------+
         -B        -A                 0                     A         B
    
                                    X-XC
    
            A = radius + 0.5 width          B = radius + 1.5 width

    
                               Figure 2:  f(X-XC)
                    +-------------------+-------------------+
                    |                   |     *             |
                    |                   |   *   *           |
                    |                   | *       *         |
                 0  +-*-*-*-*-----------*-----------*-*-*-*-+
                    |         *       * |                   |
                    |           *   *   |                   |
                    |             *     |                   |
                    +-------+-----------+-----------+-------+
                        -width/2       0         width/2
    
                                       X-XC

so angry

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4505748943_6dcb4894f7_b.jpg

made y'all a graph

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f325/caek/sauron_ngc4570.gif

ta

np

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw

Video Created by Scott Manley, this is a view of the solar system showing the locations of all the asteroids starting in 1980, as asteroids are discovered they are added to the map and highlighted white so you can pick out the new ones.
The final colour of an asteroids indicates how closely it comes to the inner solar system.
Earth Crossers are Red
Earth Approachers (Perihelion less than 1.3AU) are Yellow
All Others are Green

Notice now the pattern of discovery follows the Earth around its orbit, most discoveries are made in the region directly opposite the Sun. You'll also notice some clusters of discoveries on the line between Earth and Jupiter, these are the result of surveys looking for Jovian moons. Similar clusters of discoveries can be tied to the other outer planets, but those are not visible in this video.

As the video moves into the mid 1990's we see much higher discovery rates as automated sky scanning systems come online. Most of the surveys are imaging the sky directly opposite the sun and you'll see a region of high discovery rates aligned in this manner.

At the beginning of 2010 a new discovery pattern becomes evident, with discovery zones in a line perpendicular to the Sun-Earth vector. These new observations are the result of the WISE (Widefield Infrared Survey Explorer) which is a space mission that's tasked with imaging the entire sky in infrared wavelengths.

The scale of the video at 1080P resolution is roughly 1million kilometers per pixel, and each second of video corresponds to 60 days.

Currently we have observed over half a million minor planets, and the discovery rates show no sign that we're running out of undiscovered objects, scientific estimates suggest that there are about a billion asteroids larger than 100metres (about the size of a football field) .

http://www.infomercantile.com/images/e/ef/Fallout_Map,_3-23-1963-Saturday-Evening-Post.jpg

http://www.infomercantile.com/blog/2009/03/cold-war-wind-patterns-1963.html

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662328/infographics-of-the-day-how-segregated-is-your-city

i knew detroit was bad, but look at the degree of clusteredness there! the segregation is so sharply defined, you could set your watch to it (and the time would be racist o'clock).

really cool stuff

want one for my city!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157624812674967/map/

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae232/daggerlee/graphcelsiior.png

http://i.imgur.com/OBeYU.jpg

super deceptive

oh for sure, just thought it looked neat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOOmqHzkkOo

so i just watched that^ and its decidedly entry level but still p amusing, the microsoft blogger emotion tracking bro at the end is perfectly creepy, and hans rosling is a wonderful loon w/many dad jokes abt how stats prove scientists from sweden are good at dancing, feel like if all accomplished people had his level of enthusiasm and humility the world would be a better place

^^^ will watch

yah it's not bad but was hoping for a lot more sexy interactive graphspergering; can always go to http://www.gapminder.org/world/ of course.

Andrew Gelman examines the difference between useful statistical graphics and the loathesome "information visualization" movement as gently as possible, without tearing it completely apart like you know he would if he weren't obviously such a nice guy.

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/presentations/vistalk4.pdf

Easily my favorite statistics blog (oh god, I read enough stats blogs to have a favorite)

http://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/largest_photo_libraries-copy.jpg

so depressing

Instagram's share is the most surprising thing to me on there

it makes me sad because photography is the medium that benefits most from aggressive editing - less is more. the greatest photographers only exhibited .001%-.01% of what they shot, if that

*stews*

for sure

it makes me sad because photography is the medium that benefits most from aggressive editing - less is more. the greatest photographers only exhibited .001%-.01% of what they shot, if that

*stews*

true. tho it's hardly surprising then that FB rules uber alles

yeah and photography serves many purposes - facebook is the world's family photo album, for all intents and purposes

pity the sociologist who does their dissertation on sig ep parties circa 2011-2015 and has to go through a google of photos

man sig ep was the ~worst~

just burned you with creative deleting on facebook dayo

i am the world's worst facebook friend

ahahaaha

thanks to ilxor max for pointing this out it's really amazing

http://exp.lore.com/post/28848285377/a-tragedy-of-priorities-the-most-appalling

http://columbiadatascience.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/photo-9.jpg

???

Those three circles shouldn't overlap at all?

Or at most the bottom circle should be inside the right circle.

i never realized there was such an overlap between people who work out and people who don't!

maybe that includes people who think they're working out, but it's controversial among people that really do work out. e.g., people who walk to work and think of that as working out since other people will walk a mile after work in sweatpants and count THAT as working out. that probably accounts for the overlap. and then you add in the people who are asleep and dreaming that they would work out if it weren't all hard and stuff (these people, when awake, actually do work out, or think they're working out, but it's controversial). and where all three of those sets meet - all of those people use the speck iPhone case.

case closed.

smh @ that

vennsanity

http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/n.png

http://i48.tinypic.com/106a44o.png

awesome! can we get a version without truncated board titles?

or rather, more distinguishably truncated?

do the circles represent the # of threads, # of posts, bandwidth, or something else?

No! (xpost)

Not because I don't want to, but I don't know how to do it.

Z S - it's number of posts.

However, here is one excluding ILM and ILE, which reveals more:

http://i45.tinypic.com/5po0ls.png

thx boo <3

one last question, sorry keith - is this from the beginning of ILX, or only the last year or so?

Since day one.

Ask A Drunk's showing made the time frame all-too-obvious to me. These days I can spit in all directions 30 days a month and never hit another drunk.

Here's a more readable one, with the "I Love" taken out:

http://i46.tinypic.com/rtnioo.png

http://i.imgur.com/l83uT8W.png

http://i.imgur.com/6QTxTcS.png

So this thing

http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-americans-die.html

knocked my fucking socks off.

also wow how have i never seen this thread

on the less impressive end of the spectrum: https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/455966095384793088

omg

btw this seems like a good thread for horace "chartboy" dediu's new show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab7yxU7lNHg

fuck everything btw

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BldfNyeIYAA7lAl.jpg

just died @ that gun deaths graph. add it to the data pool.

you may want to sit down for this. i've uncovered something disturbing, something that could have a substantial effect on the way that you'll experience ILX. and somehow, it all has to do with ME. what are the chances holy shit, this is exciting.

i was doing my routine morning data analysis on my thread posting history when i decided to "dig deeper" into the data and create some "data visualizations", aka charts. here's a line graph showing the number of threads i've posted over my many years on ilx (many more years than any other ilx poster):

http://i.imgur.com/ibvmKV5.png

note that for 2014 i took the number of threads i created in the first 6 months (15) and extrapolated that to an estimated 30 new threads for the entire year.

let's "dig deep" into the data and create a linear trendline:

http://i.imgur.com/3gZwbIn.png

science projects that i'll post 29 new threads in 2015. but let's dig deep into the data and see what polynomial theory has to say:

http://i.imgur.com/LdSxdPh.png

the second order of polyscience suggests that my output will decline to a similar degree, to around 28 threads in 2015. but what if we "dig deep" into the data and take it to the 3rd order? what then?

http://i.imgur.com/nzbC5sK.png

3rd order science appears to be making a surprising prediction: 50 new threads in 2015. on the way to the store to buy arthritis ointment i program my computer to take it to the next level and take the polynomial theory to the 4th order:

http://i.imgur.com/vh1X8oi.png

42 is the prediction for 2015. finding: polynomial theory appears to create trendlines that are different depending on the order. let's dig deep and reach for the 5th polynomial order:

http://i.imgur.com/J7XMQP1.png

astonishing: the deeper you dig into the data, the fewer answers you come up with. the theoretical 5th order projection is 16 new threads created in 2015. the farther i look with my mind, the smaller i become, in terms of my ILX presence. i am disturbed but also confused and angry at science, which appears to contradict itself. as i gather the kindling to make the bonfire that will burn my books of science and polynomial theory, i remember that there is one more order that can be achieved with the proper formula: "the sixth order of polynomial order".

again, you may want to sit down for this.

knowing what was to come, i sat down and produced this:

http://i.imgur.com/ticccQk.png

i will create over 500 threads in 2015. as this is the latest data i have obtained, i know that this projection is the most accurate. i am preparing to create 1.37 threads a day in 2015, all in tribute to science and order.

this polynomial theory is blowing my gourd

i did not have to scroll down to know who posted this

it is true that there is really only one authority in polynomial theory on this board

seriously though i don't really understand why the 6th order trendline is so crazy compared to the lower orders.

i like to call this paradox the "next frontier in theoretical polyscience"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting

hmmm, yes that's an interesting theory

but it's not the one you subscribe to, professor malone?

i prefer to let the mysteries of science marinate in the sea of self-collected data for a while - eventually, the answers always rise to the top

it would be fun to fake your way onto rightwing AM radio as a "science expert"

I've been making graphs for my company for the past year or so, and with no formal training, I still feel like this newspaper is publishing the rantings of a crazy person.

For example, we used to measure net absorption rates in regular bar form, like this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/32941/net-absorption-by-quarter.jpg

Net absorption is such a weird stat anyway - Basically how much square footage was gained or lost in a market between two quarters. It can be positive or negative. And if a shopping mall opens or a factory closes, the numbers can vary widely.

So I wanted to show how big of a difference those numbers can be sometimes and came up with this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/49176/central-arkansas-industrial-real-estate-vacancy-553.jpg

The marks we would've used in bar formats are still there, but I represented the rates by size. The time used above was a good one since everything was positive, but if any were negative, I could've still used the space I've got and just put the zero line in the middle. Like this:

http://assets.inarkansas.com/49054/vacancy-rate-remains-flat-781.jpg

Are those too busy? Do they make any sense? What changes would you make?

I get a little lost in the woods some afternoons I'm putting these together. No one's complained yet, but hell, who knows if anyone's even looking.

Different sized circles are usually bad for data visualization, because they're easy to mess up and can be difficult to interpret.
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/01/for-data-visualization-circles-dont-cut-it.html
And also see the discussion in Nathan Yau's book Visualize This.
But circles might be pretty good to use if you're using them to represent area (or change in area) like you are. Just make sure the circles actually represent area, and you're not accidentally sizing them by radius or diameter.

Hm, I think using both circle size and the Y axis to represent net absorption might be bad, because it makes the circle sizes more difficult to compare. If you want to represent net absorption by circle size, consider taking out the Y axis and just setting all the circles on the same horizontal line.

pplains, are you trying to demonstrate that the changes are mostly capricious/random or just that they can vary widely year-to-year? from looking at these i'd guess that something happened in 2013 4Q that lead to a huge boom in both commercial + industrial sectors?

I also think different sized squares would be a more easily interpretable indicator of area, because people aren't as good at perceiving that the outer parts of a circle contain more area (the famous "biggest pizza = best deal" thing)

(Also, Dr. Malone, get one information criterion!)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/26/282132576/74-476-reasons-you-should-always-get-the-bigger-pizza

one problem with the circles (as used above) is that it can difficult to tell at a glance what the actual quantities are - is it the point at the middle of the circle? at the top edge? bottom edge? reasonable people could come to different conclusions, i think. it's really impossible to tell without labeling each of the individual circles, which you've done. but if you have to label each of the individual circles in order to communicate the quantities, then there's probably a better way to do it. also, Dan I otm about area vs radius vs diameter

And especially since some of the values are negative, it's better to just stick with the bar chart in your first image. Really feel like the human brain might have a problem interpreting the size of a thing on a plot as actually being the magnitude of the reduction in that thing.

you could implement a new system where you walk around the office giving tootsie rolls for every 1000 sq. ft. of net office space gained that quarter. if your company loses office space, then you take away an item on the person's desk for every 1000 sq. ft. lost. this simultaneously acts as an incentive system

You could change the unit from square feet to "# of john's houses" to point out to everyone how small your rival john's house is.

at the least there is a problem with the x positions of the circles. they are not regularly spaced in the x direction. is that real?

those plots are very hard to interpret imo. estimating areas of circles is something we are always terrible at. but in this case it's even harder because what you're trying to get across is conceptually complicated, and the range of point sizes you're using is colossal.

the bar chart in the first example is much clearer. i would stick with that tbh. if you want to explicitly include both the absolute value of SF and the change (i.e. net absorption) (which i don't think you need to, it's implicit, unless i've misunderstood net absorption), i would use two bar graph panels, one above the other, sharing an x axis

x = time
y1 = square feet
y2 = net absorption

These are really helpful, I mean it.

The circles do represent area, flat two-dimensional area. This is why I wanted to run with showing the different sizes.

I'm showing how little I know about algebra by not quite understanding the difference between diameter and area. I read the blog about the State of the Union address and didn't quite get what the fuss was about.

(Though if it means anything, I understand why there was a fuss and why I would want to avoid making that mistake even if I'm not sure what the mistake was. How's that for clarity?)

I based the circles off of the area in this way: I somehow did the calculations of what the square root of 448,568 would be. I then put those x,y coordinates into the "exact ratio" field of the circle selection tool, so it would be perfect circle. Then I based the ratios of the other circles on that. Is this voodoo economics?

And fwiw, these graphs never appeared together. Even if they weren't part of the slide, it would still bug me that the circles would be the same size despite one being 448K and the other being -64K.

then there's probably a better way to do it.

oh most indeed.

at the least there is a problem with the x positions of the circles. they are not regularly spaced in the x direction. is that real?

The x positions, the number of square feet, are accurately pinpointed by the white squares. If it was a bar graph, the bars would rise and fall exactly to those spots on the graph.

The circles are illustrations only.

I have no idea if I answered that question or not.

standard advice is don't use the size or area of symbols on the page to represent any important data, because people can't "read" it

your first bar chart has the same data in it and is familiar and easy to read.

why aren't the centres of the circles on the white points?

oh wait. i had totally been misreading your graphs. they are very confusing!

my points still stand. i think you need to get rid of the circles.

And fwiw, these graphs never appeared together. Even if they weren't part of the slide, it would still bug me that the circles would be the same size despite one being 448K and the other being -64K.

this is not a minor thing. it's a huge flaw in the approach.

if area of the circle represents the data, and you have positive and negative data, then negative changes should have circles with negative areas. this is not possible.

things you can't do when you have positive and negative data:

log plots
area plots

you could compare the area to the peak area, which you could show for scale, and never go negative. but you shouldn't.

I'm starting to think I'm bombing on these.

Another stat that I thought wasn't being illustrated correctly has to do with unemployment figures. Usually, those are in bar graph form from month to month or by region, pretty straight forward.

http://assets.inarkansas.com/47290/arkansas-unemployment-rate-2013-4q-general.jpg

But there's a weird anomaly that happens from month to month where the number of jobs/number of people changes. So you might have a month where there are more people working, but the unemployment rate goes up the number of jobs go up too.

I did my circle thing again and second-guessed later that I should've made the red unemployed figure go around the circumference of the blue ball so that it would match the green total ball.

But now, I feel like I should be working for Fox News or the Enquirer.

http://assets.inarkansas.com/51231/may-2014-employment-in-arkansas.jpg

bar graphs aren't really performing any role when you can't visually tell the difference between them

like it is a fox news graph in a sense "look the economy hasn't changed at all!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz2mmM-kN1I

http://gecon.yale.edu/

cool data set with economic output on a 1 degree latitude by 1 degree longitude

http://oi58.tinypic.com/24en8kh.jpg
http://oi58.tinypic.com/inxu87.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/k13skz.jpg

grid

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6PtWdLXsAAgIht.jpg

- "Maybe we should get another usual suspect in the lineup besides the Indian woman."

- "But from where? Estonia? Venezuela? There aren't many other countries to choose from!"

Look at the difference between 5’4” and 5’5” on the y-axis, compares to between 5’0” and 5’1”

Other than that, great chart design!!

The Latvian woman is huge and the woman from India is tiny to visually convey the fact that Latvia has a female population at least ten times larger than the female population of India.

The sum of the height of all the Indian women will be more though. Is there a graph of that?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7K2CkyXkAAEJKT.jpg

that was so upsetting. Also needs the the n/2+7 line drawn on as well

is there a name for a visualization that would accomplish the following?

i want to compare two populations that each have two subsets--say one of them is 15M people total, then 4M of those people meet a specific condition, and 1.9M of those 4 meet a further specific condition. and the other population has the same conditions but completely different proportions.

so basically like a treemap but instead of the whole area adding up to the total it would have proportional smaller rectangles embedded within a big rectangle? is this even a thing?

would a simple stacked bar graph do the trick? here are two that meet your requirements:
https://i.imgur.com/me2obge.png
https://i.imgur.com/sW9m0c5.png

the first shows two populations of different sizes, the second shows two population of equal sizes.

or wait, i see what you're saying. subsets within subsets. if that's the case, you could just color code the results. 11M non-diarrhea, 6 million with diarrhea. non-diarrhea is a deep calm blue, diarrhea is an agitated warm color. 4.1 million of the 6 million have severe diarrhea, so make that deep red. the other 1.9 million have moderate diarrhea, so make that orange.

https://i.imgur.com/eZND3qv.png

or, to go to your op, a tree map, and just format the results to highlight the groupings you want

Karl I am gonna need seventeen more made up diarrhea graphs on my desk by COB tomorrow.

i'm glad i processed those extra participants' waivers during my lunch break yesterday, sunday, instead of eating

"Beginner's Diarhhea"!

What a wonderfully misleading diagram in the Times today 📈 pic.twitter.com/isQtZS6Mot

— Will Bailey-Watson (@mrwbw) June 27, 2022

loooooooool

An analysis looks at how defense spending among the nations with the highest expenditures has changed since 1992 and what may have driven the changes https://t.co/3ln08vOKAo pic.twitter.com/yqK6MqwQUm

— St. Louis Fed (@stlouisfed) January 22, 2023

https://i.redd.it/cxtoiiuy9l9b1.png

see you there in April!