F

F

[deleted]

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

YES, YES, WE ARE ALL REAL FELLOW HUMANS HERE

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.