96
If we can just reduce the number to 0, we'll stop climate change at 0.5 degrees above the preindustrial baseline
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
96 points (94.4% liked)
Crappy Correlations
429 readers
1 users here now
Post your correlation, but it better be funny damn it.
Note: Please keep it funny, and not political . There are plenty of other places on Lemmy to post more serious type of content.
This is a community just for some fun based on the spurious correlations website made by a university student.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/random
I have no relation to him, but you can visit the link above and see any random correlation that you want.
You can make your own with no graphics or programming knowledge from imgflip here
If you do actually follow the link you will see not only the graph but an ai generated explanation and an AI scholarly paper that supports these correlations.
Who knows what is going to happen when the AIs pick up these hundreds of scholarly papers and put them in their training data. Anyone who wants to post a better blank graph can do so.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This post forced me to clarify the terms of this community just a little bit, because I don't want it to devolve into another place where people bitch about billionaires and workers rights and how terrible everything is and how we're all going to die because of Racism, Trump , imperialist aggression, climate change, or Penguins. I want this community to be fun and a break from all that stuff. I'm going to leave this post though because It's not really mean, and some people might find it funny. And when I reread the little community description I wasn't really clear.
You shouldn't remove this post because it's political, but you should remove it because the correlation isn't crappy enough. Hell, there's a reasonable argument to be made for a causative link!
I agree.
I don't think you should be editorializing the content which gets posted. Instead come up with a clear definition/ test of what a "crappy correlation" is, it flies. People are going to post whatever they are going to post and trying to get your own perspective across (even if that perspective is "I want a break from that stuff") is a political bias. Its bad moderation, and a political perspective in its own right. You don't control what other people post is kind-of the point, and asking people to match your editorial bent seems inappropriate.
More importantly, whats a good definition for a high quality "crappy correlation" is?
It would seem to me that there may be tiers. I've seen some which are just line go up, line go down, not based on any real data. Those are pretty low quality imo. E-C tier.
Second there are those maybe based on real data, but the correlation is spurious, or attributed, but might actually have causal linkage. B tier.
Then there are those based on real data, and the correlation is ridiculous, and not possibly causal. However the correlation might be a low fit (R2 of less than .75). Those are A tier.
Finally there are those based on real data, and the correlation is ridiculous, and not possibly causal. However the correlation is a tight fit (R2 of greater than .75). Those are S tier.
a good definition for what a crappy correlation is is just the spurious correlations from the spurious correlations website that's in the main link , and the whole point of them is that they're funny. And by crappy we mean something that is mathematically correlated that it makes absolutely no sense. That's why it's funny, and that's what makes it funny. If you do not make the moderator laugh, you will be executed. There's no probation, we just go straight to execution. Oh I'm sorry, I meant crucifixion. Let's do crucifixion.