this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
63 points (66.7% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

6847 readers
1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz


(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That graph is too old or has the wrong information. Apple is more than 2 trillion today and Bitcoin is about 500+ billion right now.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everyone knows data is not beautiful when you visualize scalars using area instead of length.

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m pretty sure it’s by volume, which is even worse

[–] bort@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like it. you can visualize sizes with 3 orders of magnitude between them without one being microscopic.

What makes this graph shitty, is that the spheres don't look very 3D.

[–] Otakat@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I respectfully disagree. If you want to compare orders of magnitude, you should use a logarithmic scale.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah these are long-ago settled, 101-level, wikipedia-level data visualization principles.

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Wait like 3D volume? 😬 I was looking at it completely wrong

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 57 points 1 year ago

What a terrible visualization

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A graph of overlapping 3D-spheres? That’s new.

[–] Blackout@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think they are even to scale either so the artwork is pointless

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It could be volumetrically to scale, which to say at the least is disgusting for a 2D graph

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

🤢 an invisible exponentially compressed y-axis

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get the feeling that having nearly all money in stock markets is not the best idea. I don't know why that would be the case, but it seems very pyramid scheme like.

Nah, it's cool and normal. What could possibly go wrong? Should anything try to go wrong, the great invisible hand will stop it!

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there a reason they've listed bill Gates and larry page? There are people with far far higher net worths, this is such a strange graphic

[–] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's pretty old, Apple is now worth 2 Trillion

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Well that's depressing

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are these meant to be spheres? A 2D circle would do much better at getting the point across, or at least cubes. Spheres are quite difficult to judge the volume by eye

[–] Kaavi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Real estate isn't there... But all the money in the world is.

Help, my house is now worthless? 🙈

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are houses considered money though? They are where most of peoples net worth is, but perhaps it is too non-liquid to be considered actual money for this chart.

But what's silly is that most of Bill Gates money is in stock markets so why is that money separate? Unless it is not part of the total.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say so. A lot of investments are in company stock that simply couldn't be sold legally or without tanking it. I'd say it's easier to sell your house for a profit than for them to sell significant amounts of those shares. Or even for them to trade them.

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

That's a good point. You could sell all the houses in the world to eachother without the total value of the houses going to zero.

However with the stock market there is no way to extract this 66.8 trillion. You could maybe sell 20 trillion and then it could be worthless.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like this doesn't really put anything into perspective except the specific things shown.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like it was made to cater to crypto-bros. For or against, I can't say. But the repeated comparison to bitcoin is weird.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah I mean I expected this to be on /c/bitcoin or something. If it was, I wouldn't have bothered commenting.

[–] robsuto@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Proportions seem off. The Bill Gates sphere is not ~1000x smaller than the All Money sphere. Not even close.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bill gates sphere is about 30 pixel radius and the all money is 300 pixels. So there sphere is approximately exactly x1000 small for Bill Gates.

Volume is difficult to judge, especially when its a 2D representation of a 3D object.

[–] robsuto@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Interesting. Thanks for counting the pixels.

Just eye-balling, it doesn't seem 10x larger in diameter.

But yeah, this isn't 'beautiful' data when the initial look is a 2D circle and not a 3D sphere.

[–] XEAL@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Who or what has to cease existing to bring balance?

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Stock markets.

[–] chooglers@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

the monetary-market system

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

society. We need to start over from the stone age

[–] jlow@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

So does Bitcoin not count as Crypto for them or is it included in that bubble and then still displayed separately?