It is good as a visual representation of the global, but you basically have to read each side of the triangle individually to grasp it well. The middle of the triangle means a perfectly equal distribution and the vertices mean 100% of one of the three characteristics.

Someone posted it here yesterday

And if you get only the statistically significant ones, it gets even more visible.

I agree with you. My point is that we should normalize writing a paper where you report that the experiments and/or the hypothesis itself did not work. Later, someone (just like you, in your example) may find the paper and realize they did not try this and that. It is knowledge that can be built upon.

When I was in academia, I always thought there should be a journal for publishing things that go wrong or do not work. I can only imagine there are some experiments that were repeated many times in human history because no one published that they did not work.

deleted by creator

It is kind of the xkcd that shows how lots of graphs are just population graphs, but for earthquakes and fault lines

You’re totally right, ideally yes.

Unfortunately, resources are limited and starting from somewhere is better than not starting at all.

What you mean is something close to “We should not tax the rich to level the playing field” and that is a very bad take.

No one wants to bring everyone up to the level of the best in every field. What people want is for the baseline conditions to be good enough so everyone has the opportunity of having a decent life.

It is such a large difference.

The equity crowd should want the poor people to afford a ladder, I do not understand your point.

What he said is something closer to “We should not tax the rich to level the playing field” and that is a very bad take.

Yeah, more resolution would go a long way into making it more beautiful

It took me a while to figure out the top graph is the year by year increase in absolute numbers.

It definitely looks very promising! =)