Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KoeiNL t1_j9t6fdl wrote

The only thing worse than a pie chart is a 3D pie chart.

117

Maso_del_Saggio t1_j9t6yqw wrote

He has even the gall of specifying that the "tool" used was PowerPoint. What the hell is this sub anymore.

25

KoeiNL t1_j9t825y wrote

I was originally planning to make a joke about WordArt.....guess I wasn't far off.

7

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9tebb5 wrote

The data itself is beautiful.

Edit: Please read the rules.

>Does appearance matter?

>Yes! But pretty pictures are not the aim of this subreddit. Posts should strive to present information as effectively as possible. Part of that process is visual design. Default output from Excel, R, mapping programs, etc. can be overly cluttered and hard to understand. Try looking at font sizes, erroneous grid lines, alignment, and aliasing. A lack of good design ultimately limits the ability of a visualization to convey information.

>However, don't downvote because you think a post is ugly. If you have some design experience, please add some constructive criticism, so people know how to improve.

−26

BadBunnyYonaguni t1_j9xi09v wrote

But that isn’t the point of this sub. It’s for beautiful depictions of data.

8

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xvt6o wrote

Some people seem to think this. I for myself find many very interesting charts here that are not visually beautiful and I would miss them if the sub would only allow charts that are unique and visually nice. Stunning data is also beautiful.

In my case it's just a historic vote with no consequences. But it contradicts Putin's propaganda.

Edit: From the subreddit rules:

>Does appearance matter?

>Yes! But pretty pictures are not the aim of this subreddit. Posts should strive to present information as effectively as possible. Part of that process is visual design. Default output from Excel, R, mapping programs, etc. can be overly cluttered and hard to understand. Try looking at font sizes, erroneous grid lines, alignment, and aliasing. A lack of good design ultimately limits the ability of a visualization to convey information.

>However, don't downvote because you think a post is ugly. If you have some design experience, please add some constructive criticism, so people know how to improve.

−5

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9tf1m6 wrote

A pie chat is a very obvious choice to give a fast view on the results of a dichotome question. Also notice the nice coloring.

Edit because many downvoted: Why all the hate for a poor pie chart? It's a standard chart to show what answers of 100 are reaching a bigger or smaller part. For example very common if you want to show the importance of different industries as parts of s countries GDP.

−23

DM-me-ur-tits-plz- t1_j9xost4 wrote

A pie chart with two categories is dumb.

Yeah, if you've got like 6 different things then percentages alone can make it difficult to visualize.

But I think we can handle two numbers.

4

eclectic-up-north t1_ja1gnvw wrote

Because it tells you nothing. What are the seven counties. Highlighting them on a map might be useful.

1

dr5c t1_j9w0u4d wrote

'Abstain' is an incredibly important missing label here which includes 30+ countries.

57

nato2271 t1_j9t65yi wrote

The UN now has the votes to send a harshly worded letter to the manager of Russia…to stop it or we will vote again a second time…

51

[deleted] t1_j9t4jwx wrote

[deleted]

19

nato2271 t1_j9t6aqk wrote

Yet they will all walk away vey happy with themselves and all the good work they have done….sleep well little UN delegates knowing that you have saved the world again…

8

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9terz6 wrote

The impact is the message to all potential aggressors: It's not just "The West" condemning Russias actions, it's a vast majority of countries.

We're still in a very early state of uniting the planet so this is one small step.

0

AugustCharisma t1_j9t7xni wrote

Why did this take 12 months?

13

Stepawayfrmthkyboard t1_j9w9gmd wrote

The poor guy was new to PowerPoint. Takes time to learn these things. Harsh much?

/s

11

A-DustyOldQrow t1_j9wsmkh wrote

Not sure what you mean. The vote happened yesterday.

1

Agreeable_Cook486 t1_j9x2g7y wrote

I assume she meant why did it take so long for a UN vote for Russia to pull out of Ukraine. Like Putin gives a crap about what UN votes or not though

5

AugustCharisma t1_j9xoxsz wrote

Yes. I mean it’s now 12 months since Putin invaded Ukraine and they are only now voting on this.

1

No-one-importantish t1_j9tc18f wrote

Misleading chart. Aren’t there a bunch of abstentions? (For the record I think Russia should leave Ukraine)

11

damnimadeanaccount t1_j9w1m69 wrote

I also think it's a bit misleading, mainly because of China and India (more than a third of world population) being ignored that way.

I would love to see diagrams with abstentions and also adjusted for population and maybe GDP.

6

jisforjerms t1_j9wnu3l wrote

Does UN voting consider population of a country though? Seems like every country would have an “equal”ish vote

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9tehq6 wrote

It's as misleading as leaving out absentions of a general election

Edit: Did you know that 33% did not vote in the last US election and no one cares? If you downvote at least argue why it's a difference if less than 20% of countries did the same in the UN vote?

−14

askLubich t1_j9vy1l6 wrote

!3d

11

AutoModerator t1_j9vy1nr wrote

You've summoned the advice page on !3d. There are issues with 3D data visualizations that are are frequently mentioned here. Allow me to provide some useful information:

You may wish to consider one of the following options that offer a far better way of displaying this data:

  • See if you can drop your plot to two dimensons. We almost guarantee that it will show up easier to read.
  • If you're trying to use the third axis for some kind of additional data, try a heatmap, a trellis plot, or map it to some other quality instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

8

[deleted] t1_j9w2w2g wrote

Next up, the UN will vote on sanctions against people who make 3D pie charts and it'll be UNANIMOUS.

11

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xunyz wrote

I like 3D pie charts. I never understood the hate. In this case it's a single chart with only two parts so I don't see a problem.

−1

[deleted] t1_j9xv9pe wrote

From an aesthetic point of view I have no beef with them; that's just personal taste. But they mislead. Look at the darker blue "side wall". That has tends to exaggerate the sense of blueness in the image. It dominates the yellow far more than it should in the basis of the raw data. The aim of a visualisation should be to communicate the data accurately, not to mislead. 3D pie charts mislead, so should be avoided. Unless you want to mislead. Then you should definitely use them.

2

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xwq9v wrote

Ok, point taken. But for 141:7 it's not really making a difference.

Also I feel people hate pie charts in general?

0

[deleted] t1_j9xxf94 wrote

Yeah, pie charts are somewhat problematic but I don't hate on the 2D ones quite as much. They can be useful. Sometimes. There are sound reasons for the hatred, something about perception of area being harder than perception of length, idk.

2

PredictorX1 t1_j9t56cd wrote

How many countries abstained?

5

Dalimyr t1_j9v18iu wrote

There were 32 that abstained.

The 7 who voted against were Russia (obviously), Belarus (also obviously), Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria.

The 32 who abstained were: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

10

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9tec4t wrote

All cowards

−1

Impressive-Relief-60 t1_j9wbnq9 wrote

Nah. It is not their problem. West expect the whole world to worry about them while they dont give a rats ass about the world problem ( out side the western bubble ). And in a lot of cases, the west is also the whole Reason for the issues in these countries. So shut the fuck up

−6

Aggravating_Fox9828 t1_j9wt0er wrote

You should the fuck up. Two wrongs don't make one right. And it's not a first world problem we are talking about here, is a war were civilians are getting murdered and raped. Unless you support that kind of attrocities, you are the one who needs to shut up. Jesus Christ, what's wrong with this kind of people.

5

Impressive-Relief-60 t1_j9y016e wrote

Yeah I will see how much you care about humanity if I ask about your opinion about oppression of Palestinians by Zionists and how the west supports this apartheid. So come down from your moral high ground.

1

Amthala t1_j9wx7jr wrote

Quite possibly the worst possible take on this situation.

4

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xv0v3 wrote

If we want to progress we need to stand together against any aggressor invading a foreign country for non reason.

And before you ask, yes, that includes what GW Bush did to Iraque. But Saddam Hussein was a dictator so there was not much empathy.

And again, many countries of the 141 are not "the West"!

1

Impressive-Relief-60 t1_j9xzpra wrote

Yeah Saddam was a dictator. So US and its allies ( including Ukraine ) sends its army to invade that country and made it worse than it was ever before. Good thinking.

They have done exactly the same with Libya. They will do it again. Thats what they have been doing for a long time. Tell me why they still sanction Cuba? Which country did they invade? What destruction did Cuba caused in any countries? They are still sanctioned even when majority of the countries in UN has voted against the sanctions. The west can do whatever they want and they will always has an excuse or explanation. As far as I am concerned, the US and its allies has caused more harm than Russia ever did. Thats not an excuse for Russia but stating where you guys stand in this.

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9y19kf wrote

I was protesting on the streets when the US invaded Iraque in the 90s as well as in the 2000s. And I would've been because of Vietnam or the CIA's involvement in Latin America. So I am not one of "you guys".

Doesn't change the fact that any aggressor who invades a neighbour should get a clear opinion of the world.

1

StumpyMcStump t1_j9wbp24 wrote

3d pie (pie itself is fine for this point). Hard to read text and legend. Missing data (abstentions). 3/10

5

yesterdaywsthursday t1_j9wlj0e wrote

This chart is as pointless as the UN vote

4

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xvefv wrote

It's not pointless to show a dictator that a vast majority disagrees.

But yes, the veto rights in the security council and the possession of nuclear weapons make it difficult to give a an aggressor the answer he deserves.

What's your recommendation to the 141 countries?

0

yesterdaywsthursday t1_ja03b0u wrote

You’re absolutely delusional if you think Putin gives a fuck what these UN delegates think

2

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_ja08aag wrote

Oh yes, he looks exactly what and how many countries voted against him and he does not like it. In fact, it's the whole point, he wants a new USSR which is feared like 60 years ago. The vote shows how far away those times are.

0

predator2811 t1_j9xx3ds wrote

This is plain misleading. The 30+ abstaining countries that include China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other large countries change the picture massively.

2

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9y0wb4 wrote

It's still 141:7 of those who voted. Like a general election, where no one talks about the 33% who did not. So your point is that we should generally talk about those who abstained?

2

Regnes t1_j9w2kd9 wrote

Or else they will be very, very angry with Russia, and they will write Russia a letter telling them how angry they are.

1

kompootor t1_j9wkrka wrote

I didn't think there could be something less meaningful than a GA resolution vote until I saw a chart of a GA resolution vote.

(Though in fairness I read that a GA resolution does have the tiniest, barest iota of consideration in international law when it comes to evaluating norms -- worthwhile enough to get a footnote in international court rulings from time to time. Norms are evaluated far more heavily based on the domestic law of parties and their peers as well as, well, norms -- what everyone's just been doing in similar situations for decades.)

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xvku7 wrote

That's because you did not consider how it is important that so many countries have the balls to openly condemn the action of a powerful aggressor even if this has no direct consequences.

But maybe you have a solution what the 141 countries can do?

1

kompootor t1_j9ykd5j wrote

If it has no consequences, then it doesn't take balls to do.

The GA vote probably has more importance as a short-term PR boost (or burden) with headlines like these, so the countries that voted against the resolution probably were able to do something more in terms of moderating the Russia-China axis than the rest of the countries. Why? Because the only reason countries have to vote for anything not relevant to their politics is for something in return -- so every vote against is something Russia (or perhaps China) had to trade in. Of course most things aren't wholly zero-sum like that, but it's still the important thing to keep in mind with almost any assembly vote -- but especially GA -- that much or most of the real work is in the whipping behind the scenes.

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9yqwgi wrote

No. Most countries that did not vote Yes are either fearing Russia, are shitholes themselves or are dependent on Russia. India is the biggest of them.

1

kompootor t1_ja1dza7 wrote

Please look up any reputable analysis on who has the upper hand in the relationship: India vs Russia; or also for fun, China vs Russia.

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_ja2u3ks wrote

This might not fit your worldview but

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations

1

kompootor t1_ja3ebkn wrote

What wouldn't fit my worldview? What contradicts what I've said? The numbers are important, sure -- it tells you that there is a significant mutual economic interest, ramped up to 11 since the war began. The reason for looking up an analysis is because they can interpret those numbers over the past several years, and in context of the region and of Russia's, India's, and China's trade and foreign policy in general, and tell you, again, who's the boss in the relationship.

For a start, consider trade. Russia's available export markets were dramatically cut since the war began, and as its economy has been primarily driven by oil and gas exports, it slashed prices to find new buyers fast. China came first, then India, who together import an equal share of about 40% of Russia's crude (-ish -- the numbers are fluctuating per the article; it was about the same share in December; Russia also majorly exports gas and refined fuel of course). Note how dramatically India's imports rose, supposedly once it got the right price and political incentive. If Russia said tomorrow "we're mad -- no more oil", then India goes back to their old supplier -- but who else does Russia have to sell that 20% of crude to, that they already sell well below market price?

That's a very basic analysis on how what looks to be a mutual trade agreement might actually be extremely one-sided, but there's so much in the three-way relationship that you have to look at a full analysis. And one about the last 5--10 years, not an analysis of the Cold War.

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_jac6zt8 wrote

If this war shows something than how dependent we all are on each other. Energy, machine parts, food etc., everyone needs something. So most relationships are not one-sided.

Speaking of India they could decide to change their energy imports but that would deeply affect their military also because it's based on Russian tech. So it's complex.

1

Alone-Mistake-2757 t1_j9xpaem wrote

Society if voting on problems could solve global problems:

*insert picture of highly advanced and futuristic scenery*

1

Denk-doch-mal-meta OP t1_j9xw63l wrote

It can. Imagine a UN but without a separate security council, that has the power similar to the central government of a nation. No single country could do such shit without hard consequences.

1