[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[SS-18 ICBM]

But watching the game itself... dear God.

It should be fun with friends though, right?


Anyway,

 

[luiz]

It should be fun with friends though, right?

Yeah as I said tailgating and the whole social aspect of watching American Football is pretty cool. Americans are great at making mega events out of anything.

But if I'm home alone I'd rather do virtually anything over watching it on TV. As the chart shows 60% of the broadcast is composed of commercials and pauses. And then there's all other non-game time (apparently they're censoring the suicide smile, but that's what was supposed to be here).

 

[Takhisis]

Censorship?

Tailgating's so much fun that the football should be skipped.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think 2008 was a particularly bad year for Republicans, with the fallout of the financial crisis and Bush's ultra low approval rating. Maybe in other years we'd see a couple more states where the poor voted Republican - but none of those would be in the South, and the total number would still be tiny, that's for sure.

The Deep South has a very racially polarized voting pattern relative to elsewhere - in Alabama and Mississippi, to take the most extreme cases, something like 88% of white voters supported the Republicans (versus something in the low to mid 50s nationwide), while 98% of blacks supported Obama, even higher than the nationwide average (95% IIRC). Obviously Obama's race was a factor, but it probably only accounts for a swing of a few percentage points. Since blacks are overrepresented among both the poor and the demographics of the Deep South, it's not surprising that an aggregate of the poorest 1/3 of those states would tend to vote Democrat (in any election).

Which party was supported by poor whites by state would be an interesting thing to look at - in general, the Democrats have gone from winning them reliably as late as the 1990s to losing them by large margins. In 1988, for example, Dukakis got only 111 votes, but he won West Virginia while losing Maryland, which is completely inconceivable for a liberal Democrat today. There was a brief reversal of that trend in the Rust Belt in 2008 because of the economic collapse; it reverted to normal in 2012. Indiana's a good example here - it went from voting for Bush by a 20 percentage point margin in 2004, to Obama by 1 in 2008, and then back to Romney by 10 in 2012. County maps show this across much of the country, but especially the rural areas of the lower Midwest and upper South.

 

[Cutlass]

I would disagree. If inhabitants of such areas would go to areas with lower costs of living, the wealth compared to the locals would be fairly obvious.

The worker doesn't get a say in where the job is located.

 

[classical_hero]

Spoiler :

Where did you get that so wrong graphic from?

 

[Tahuti]

The worker doesn't get a say in where the job is located.

Yes and no. Companies locate in the cities where the majority of workers are located - which are often outside the United States. If you happen to be outside it as a worker, you are of luck. Economies have becomes overcentralised in general. Cities can no longer take any steps to fight unemployment among their own workers.

 

[Mise]

It should be fun with friends though, right?


Anyway,

There's really too much noise in that graph IMO. Better to do some sort of moving average to smooth out the cycles. I think you'd see two distinct phases: one shallower decline from 1945 to 2000, and one steeper decline from 2000 to 2015. The difference in the gradient of the two declines wouldn't be quite so dramatic as it's depicted on the graph. The red line is kind of misleading I think as it implies that there wasn't a decline at all from 1945 to 2000, when there was.

 

[luiz]

The Deep South has a very racially polarized voting pattern relative to elsewhere - in Alabama and Mississippi, to take the most extreme cases, something like 88% of white voters supported the Republicans (versus something in the low to mid 50s nationwide), while 98% of blacks supported Obama, even higher than the nationwide average (95% IIRC). Obviously Obama's race was a factor, but it probably only accounts for a swing of a few percentage points. Since blacks are overrepresented among both the poor and the demographics of the Deep South, it's not surprising that an aggregate of the poorest 1/3 of those states would tend to vote Democrat (in any election).

Which party was supported by poor whites by state would be an interesting thing to look at - in general, the Democrats have gone from winning them reliably as late as the 1990s to losing them by large margins. In 1988, for example, Dukakis got only 111 votes, but he won West Virginia while losing Maryland, which is completely inconceivable for a liberal Democrat today. There was a brief reversal of that trend in the Rust Belt in 2008 because of the economic collapse; it reverted to normal in 2012. Indiana's a good example here - it went from voting for Bush by a 20 percentage point margin in 2004, to Obama by 1 in 2008, and then back to Romney by 10 in 2012. County maps show this across much of the country, but especially the rural areas of the lower Midwest and upper South.

The Deep South may have a racially polarized voting pattern, but if you look at the map you'll see poor people voting for Democrats in states such as Maine, the Dakotas and several other Northern and Midwestern states where there barely are any black people.

Again, the main message of the graphs remains pretty striking. It's the middle and upper income vote that is influenced by the region, not the poor vote.

 

[Cutlass]

 

[Cutlass]

 

[Mise]

If Counterstrike has taught me anything it's that silencers reduce accuracy and damage, but reduce gunshot noise to barely audible. It's definitely quieter than the thunder in de_aztec. So that chart is wrong.

 

[Takhisis]

And you can climb through conveniently-sized rectangular metal ducts without making any noise at all. True story, bro.

 

[Takhisis]

Where did you get that so wrong graphic from?

Would you mind providing one of your own to compare? 'U R SO WRONG!' is not an argument, just an expression of rage.

 

[Algeroth]

Where did you get that so wrong graphic from?

Sorry, missed this one. On one Czech forum, the real source is on the image.

Yeah, using day as metric isn't best, I guess, but do you have better?

 

[Domen]

Eight times humans came to try to live in Britain and on at least seven occasions they failed - beaten back by freezing conditions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5317762.stm

Spoiler :

Scientists think they can now write a reasonably comprehensive history of the occupation of these isles.

It stretches from 700,000 years ago and the first known settlers at Pakefield in Suffolk, through to the most recent incomers just 12,000 years or so ago.

The evidence comes from the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain Project.

This five-year undertaking by some of the UK's leading palaeo-experts has reassessed a mass of scientific data and filled in big knowledge gaps with new discoveries.

The project's director, Professor Chris Stringer from London's Natural History Museum, came to the British Association Science Festival to outline some of the key findings.

What has been uncovered has been a tale of struggle: "In human terms, Britain was the edge of the Universe," he said.

The project has established that a see-sawing climate and the presence of intermittent land access between Britain and what is now continental Europe allowed only stuttering waves of immigration.

And it has extended the timing of what was regarded to be the earliest influx by 200,000 years.

More than 30 flint tools unearthed in a fossil-rich seam at Pakefield, Lowestoft, on the east coast, represent the oldest, unequivocal evidence of humans in northern Europe.

But the story from then on is largely one of failed colonisation, as retreating and advancing ice sheets at first exposed the land and then covered it up.

"Britain has suffered some of the most extreme climate changes of any area in the world during the Pleistocene," said Professor Stringer.

"So places in say South Wales would have gone from something that looked like North Africa with hippos, elephants, rhinos and hyenas, to the other extreme: to an extraordinary cold environment like northern Scandinavia."

The evidence suggests there were eight major incursions
All but the last - about 12,000 years ago - were unsuccessful
A number of major palaeo-sites mark the periods of influx
Extreme cold made Britain uninhabitable for thousands of years

Scientists now think there were seven gaps in the occupation story - times when there was probably no human settlement of any kind on these shores. Britain and the British people of today are essentially new arrivals - products only of the last influx 12,000 years.

"Australian aboriginals have been in Australia longer, continuously than the British people have been in Britain. There were probably people in the Americas before 12,000 years ago," Professor Stringer explained.

Dr Danielle Schreve from Royal Holloway, University of London, has been filling out part of the story at a quarry at Lynford, near Norwich.

She and colleagues have found thousands of items that betray a site occupied some 60,000 years ago by Neanderthals.

The discoveries include the remains of mammoths, rhino and other large animals; and they hint at the sophistication these people would have had to employ to bring down such prey.

It seemed likely, she said, that the Neanderthals were picking off the weakest of the beasts and herding them into a swampy area to kill them.

"In the past, Neanderthals have been described as the most marginal of scavengers, and yet we have increasing evidence that they were supreme hunters and top carnivores," Dr Schreve told the festival.

One major piece of this great scientific jigsaw remains outstanding: extensive remains of the ancient people themselves.

What we know about the early occupations comes mostly from the stone tools and other artefacts these Britons left behind; their bones have been elusive.

Professor Stringer is confident, though, that major discoveries are still ahead.

Some of the earliest human settlements would have been in what is now the North Sea. Indeed, trawlermen regularly pull up mammoth fossils from the seabed, for example.

"There are very many promising sites in East Anglia where there is tremendous coastal erosion going on. That's bad news for the people who live there now; and we don't want it too happen to quickly either because we need time to get to grips with what's coming out of the cliffs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakefield

 

[luiz]

Average body dimensions:

Interesting fact from the same source: from Independence until around the mid 1950's, Americans were the tallest people in the world. Now they're in average 3 inches shorter than Dutchmen, who have taken the first spot, and shorter nationalities such as the Japanese have been catching up quickly.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

 

[luiz]

Louisiana is unsurprisingly one of the first ones, but I'm surprised it's not #1 with all the "to-go" daiquiri places. Even in Brazil those would be illegal...

 

[warpus]

Why are Dutch people so giant?