you would see them, they just wouldn’t look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about.
this graph doesn’t compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself.
It’s not speed, it’s the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it… speed.
The derivative of this is the speed
and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis.
it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
“where the speed is negative”? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because… at some point the height of the person was negative?
Height as a function of time results in… Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math.
If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time.
I’m going to assume you’re just a troll, nobody can be so dumb.
Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don’t know this?
If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time.
there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb.
you would see them, they just wouldn’t look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about.
Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero.
Stop making sense!
Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades.
this graph doesn’t compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself.
It’s not speed, it’s the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative.
yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it… speed.
and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis.
“where the speed is negative”? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because… at some point the height of the person was negative?
well thank you for your input 😂
Height as a function of time results in… Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math.
If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time.
I’m going to assume you’re just a troll, nobody can be so dumb.
Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don’t know this?
there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb.
If you don’t mind not seeing the data, I guess you don’t need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I’m character, almost
because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is.
So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?!
Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don’t start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well?
Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang.