(Part 2) Top products from r/dataisbeautiful

>I don't need to. The assertions is that a physical thing can't create another physical thing. That is demonstrably untrue. You're placing restricting characteristics, not me.

It's not that a physical thing can't create another physical thing (even though it would actually be a physical thing creating a physical thing out of nothing), it's that the werewolf, a physical thing, would have nowhere to be while creating the universe, and no time to do it in.

>If a wearwolf doesn't exist, it can be whatever definition I'd like. Just like your god.

No this is idiotic. The word werewolf has a definition. You can't just change the definition however you'd like. If you can, then the conversation is meaningless because you'll just change it to be exactly like god, and then we're not talking about werewolves anymore.

> I would need to know why you think anything is likely in order to demonstrate why my wearwolf is likely. You would have to present your argument for why god is likely to have created the universe. I can then replace god with anything, and the argument will probably not change, if it's any of the popular ones. To be clear. Any argument I present would be a straw man of whatever you actually believe God is. I don't know how else to explain this.

Wrong. What I have to do is show why a werewolf is less likely to have created the universe than god, and I have. You don't seem to have anything to say in response.

>It is informed. Not sure that infants have developed morals, but I'm sure you have a well thought out argument on why slavery and genocide are cool.

I never said slavery and genocide are cool, I said you have an infantile understanding of religion.

>They're equally likely within the context of an argument for the likelihood of any being creating a universe. I personally don't think the likelihood of either is even measurable. If you say god is likely, because of reasons. I could replace god with a wearwolf, and the reasons wouldn't need to change.

Yeah you keep saying this and it's not true. You get that you're supposed to be making an argument, right? All you're doing is repeating that they're same over and over, and not explaining how. Prove to me that they're the same likelihood. Why are you saying anything else? All you should be doing is proving that, or taking back what you said.

>If a being needs to be capable of creating a universe to create a universe, then that is the only characteristic necessary for creating a universe. Adding additional requirements only makes it harder to prove. My wearwolf can be both a wearwolf and have the ability to create a universe. That ability wouldn't make it less of a wearwolf. It could possibly be more likely, because the characteristics of a wearwolf can be found in nature. Whereas the common characteristics given to a god are found NOWHERE. So what seems like a bigger stretch? But again, if you assert that additional characteristics are required to be capable of creating a universe, the onus is on you to argue that assertion.

The fact that there were men and wolves in nature absolutely does not make it more likely that a werewolf created the universe, because NOTHING about men or wolves would indicate that they can create universes. In fact, we know so much about them that it makes it way less likely. God, being defined as an all-powerful metaphysical being is much more likely to have created the universe, because nothing about the nature of god, as is traditionally defined, prevents it from doing so.

>A omniscient god would know. Otherwise, we could start with any that is measurable and predictable, and work our way towards a reasonable conclusion.

An omniscient god would know what?

>I don't have an argument to present unless you give me your reason for believing a universe creating being is likely at all. Then we can discuss why a wearwolf is as equally as likely as a that being. I have no idea why you think what you think, and I'm not going to guess from a wiki page.

You're very confused. I'm not proving to you that god exists, I'm proving to you that it's more likely that god created the universe than a werewolf. The fact that there is a long line of argumentation for god is itself evidence, because there is no corresponding argumentation for a werewolf creating the universe. If you have some, feel free to present it. Since you flippantly dismissed the fact that I gave you a wikipedia page to introduce you to apologetics, here are some books:

https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509549912&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333

You're welcome. Great to hear that it's useful.

In many ways, I started the blog because I don't like most of the beginner resources. They either:

1. Start with boring, low level, low ROI things like data types (even though most of the time, you'll be working with data frames anyway), or
   
2. Tell you to start with the advanced stuff like machine learning, which is sort of like telling someone to start with calculus before doing algebra
   
   I definitely recommend starting with data visualization (out of the three "core skills" of data wrangling, data visualization, and machine learning).
   
   Conceptually, I think that Nathan Yao's Data Points is a solid introduction to data visualization. He covers just enough theory, but also lots of practical points concerning best practices, process, etc.
   
   Also, I think that two of the best data tools in R, hands down, are ggplot2 and dplyr. These two packages are the tools I wish I had years ago. In so many ways, they are perfect for the actual practice of analytics. (you can find the ggplot2 book here. I love the book, though keep in mind, it sometimes reads more like a textbook.)
   
   To be clear, I have lots of content (i.e., tutorials) that I'll be publishing over the next several months, so keep checking back for more.
   
   

There's a fantastic book called The Information Capital that has 100 data/infographic maps of London like this, including I think a breakdown of religions by borough. It's amazing, really great infographics similar to some of the best content seen on this sub.

One economist who has studied this a fair amount is Amartya Sen. In Poverty and Famines he argues that the principal cause of famines is not so much a lack of food production as inefficiency and inequalities in food distribution.

To give an extended quote from a description of his work by the Nobel Foundation (he won the prize in 1998)

> In Poverty and Famines, Sen challenges the common view that a drastic decline in the supply of food is necessarily the most significant explanation for famine. But he does not claim to be the first to perceive that numerous other factors can cause famine in large groups of a population; nor does he maintain that a shortage of food cannot trigger famine. According to Sen, the conception which prevailed when the book was published, known as FAD (food availability decline), cannot explain phenomena observed during many famines, such as: (i) famine has occurred in years when the supply of food per capita was not lower than during previous years without famine; (ii) food prices increased considerably in some years, although the supply of food was not lower as compared to previous years; (iii) in all cases of famine, large groups have not suffered starvation; and (iv) in some case, food has been exported from famine-stricken areas.

>Sen shows that a profound understanding of famine has to be based on the factors which affect the actual opportunities of different groups in society. Starvation occurs when the actual opportunities available to groups of people do not include sufficient access to food, and there are many social and economic factors which limit such opportunities. For example, part of his explanation for the Bangladesh famine of 1974 is that flooding throughout the country that year significantly raised food prices, while the work opportunities for agricultural workers declined drastically as one of the crops could not be harvested. Due to these factors, the real incomes of agricultural workers declined so much that this group was disproportionately stricken by starvation.

Like the op said, coding is the easy part of making an animation like that. The hard part is driving the equations of motion which govern it. These would be good places to start if you want to be able to analyze a system yourself:

Book


Class

This is the source for my claim as to mate selection in reality not working like that: https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Selection-Origins-Mating-Systems/dp/0199559430

it is far more complex than boiling it down to a numbers game based on arbitrary societal values for certain populations. Studies on China's dating scene are different again than the west. Also you just took said values from a different situation again and then applied that to the online scene. The online "dating" scene is largely a sex hookup thing for men which is where this large net of mostly right swipes comes from.

Sources http://welcome2boomtown.com/Suicide

This is part of book I wrote about getting older. It uses lots of pictures and data. If you are interested, the ebook is free starting tomorrow (Friday 11/15/19) for the next five days. You can get the book here

haha definitely not Italian.
But for an interesting read, this book, blew my mind.

Basically, many neighborhoods in were based on nationality (due to the nature of immigration). A few were particularly filled with Jewish immigrants and families. Boston and its banks decided to sell mortgages to african americans in only these neighborhoods. Chaos ensues.

Great book, terrible name.

> the NYT publishes so much BS

> the church of climate change

Yikes, your bias is showing. You might want to consider trying to learn atmospheric science from an actual textbook instead of letting right-wing blogs tell you what to think. I'd recommend this one or this one if your math is up to par, after which you could probably then move up to a graduate-level text like this one.

Dreamland is a great book that goes really in depth on the topic, but basically the current epidemic is the result of a sort of perfect storm of a bunch of causes. To name a few: the over prescription of narcotic painkillers in the late 90s, the decline of the working class (especially in the rust belt), and the growth of Heroin cartels in central america, particularly Mexico.

kinda a different outlook on this idea, but if you like that, you should read seveneves.

Hadley (ggplot2 author) also has a book on the package if you want to get a solid foundation: here

A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadham is a recent book on the matter, explaining in-depth why this is happening and what it means for the climate going forward.

Interesting. Never heard of them. They show fake reviews too, though their adjusted star rating isn't quite as low https://reviewmeta.com/amazon/B00WFY7I2C

Got the timeline of the universe from here, here, and from the book Sapiens by Yuval Harari. The years are not exactly the same from all sources but I tried to triangulate. Also it doesn't make a big difference since I'm converting it to a 72 year period (made all the conversions on excel). Average lifespan of a human being is 71.5 years over the 2010-2015 period according to this Wikipedia article; this is the primary source.

https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic/dp/1620402521/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

https://reviewmeta.com/amazon/B00WFY7I2C

You can read the book.

I was reading a book on SC history. According to the author, the plantations were mostly in the eastern areas (called tidewater or coastal plain), which were rich earth swampy areas. The wealthy owners would only live there during the winter months, and would retreat to the piedmont homes during the hot growing months to avoid the worst of the heat, mosquitos, and yellow fever & malaria. The poor couldn't really afford to drain the swamps and setup the farms on the east coast, it was entirely dominated by the relatively wealthy plantations.

So what I understand is that during the hot summer months, the only people left on the east coast were the slaves running the farms, the poor white slave drivers, and the shipping merchants. The piedmont areas were more typically small yeoman farmers (0 - 5 co-working slaves) and lumber workers and tarheels.

It took me three "Next"s before I realized what was going on. Newspaper style, I'd make my point first: look for ways to start with the final chart and, if need be, introduce the four sources of delay in other ways. I suspect that the final bullet list beneath the chart will do the job (but see below for my note on writing). Maybe a short sentence within the hover thingie, rather than a name?

The top bullet points are is too specific to start out with. I lack context when I read them, and they are besides the point until the very end, or ever. I'd use that top space for more valuable stuff. (Also, super specific but nagging me: You mention 15 minutes required to be a delay, yet in the chart the bars go no higher than 8. I understand technically the difference, but it kills my intuition and put a doubt in my mind as to whether I really understand what's going on -- self-doubt often being a more potent source of fear or dislike than actual misunderstanding.)

Text: Simple words, short sentences, ruthless editing. Write like you speak. If you are the least interested, read https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548

To answer your questions (in case those are required for class):

What do you notice in the visualization?

• Airlines rated by how delayed they are.
  
• There are different sources of delays, two of which make up most of the reasons
  
  What questions do you have about the data?
  
  
• How does my airline do compared to others?
  
• What's within the two major categories? I'd keep them as is, but can I also see a breakdown? I'm especially curious as to NAS.
  
• What's with the other airlines not listed here?
  
• How does it change over the year? (The month bars doesn't really help here, especially so as you update the X axis when the bars change)
  
  What relationships do you notice?
  
  
• It looks like the relative %-age of cause is kindof the same within airlines even though different airlines differ between each others. How come Southwest gets less problems with NAS than AA?
  
  What do you think is the main takeaway from this visualization?
  
  
• Fly Southwest, maybe. Definitely that some do a better job than others. (But on second thought, if my plane is delayed 4 minutes or 8 doesn't matter much. What matters is my risk of being VERY delayed, like 30+ minutes. Does that differ between airlines? You might have a story there too?)
  
  Is there something you don’t understand in the graphic?
  
  
• The texts are way too hard for me: technical terms, passive tone, what have you.
  
  Hope it helps!

The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists

http://www.amazon.com/The-Missing-Martyrs-Muslim-Terrorists/dp/0199766878


Actually, until the US invasion of Iraq, the most number of terrorism incidents was in Latin America, according to the US State Dept report on Patterns of Global Terrorism.

> I'll tell you this, you've been sold a bill of goods that says spending huge amounts of money will fix everything.

No, I never intended to imply that it would fix everything.

Today, the immediate problem is that there aren't enough jobs because business isn't spending. There is an entity that can spend without worrying about profit; indeed this is its mandate, in my opinion. This is the government. Ergo, it ought to spend this economy by purchasing everything made until such point that private businesses or consumers start spending again.

The deficit, etc. is a longer-term problem. It's akin to your child refusing to eat their morning cereal, so you stop serving them food altogether, assuming their hunger will kick in, forcing them to somehow figure out how to cook and feed themselves. It just does not work.

Read Mark Blyth's Austerity: the History of a Dangerous Idea where he explains why. The tl;dr of the work is that what I'd outlined above.

There were political economies in the iron ages. Kings didn't starve during famine but peasants did. If there were better social protections (such as good grain storage and distribution) peasants would not starve. The story of Joseph telling the pharaoh to save grain is an example of how famine could be alleviated in earlier times.

The academic literature on the history of disasters is very weak, but a few sources to back up my statements are:

Collapse: https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009

and Greg Bankoff's work on disaster history: http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/history/our_staff/greg_bankoff.aspx

There's one other book on the history of disaster but I'm blanking on it.

Greg's article 'there's no such thing as natural disasters' is much more eloquent than any explanation I can give: http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2694