- cross-posted to:
- lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
If the article is about how just a few countries are dominating the podiums, I think this is an incredibly effective graph.
At this rate, at the next Olympics they’ll be in -10.5 place!
This reminds me of that chart showing gun deaths over a few years that showed the line going down the more deaths there were. That made sense graphically, they colored it in to look like blood dripping down, but this is just dumb.
The values are even incorrect. 2008, they got 63rd. 2024 they got 19th.
…does it not say 63rd for 2008?
Yeah it does. I fucked up, they actually placed 64th and not 63rd. Importantly I’m not a reporter.
WE’RE NUMBER ZERO! WE’RE NUMBER ZERO!
Tbh I don’t see where this is bad (except maybe the 0 label). Why should “up” always be “better”? There are countless other examples where this is not the case. Or am I missing something here?
The Y axis is the absolute number of medals and the labels for each data point are relative rankings. If one country got all the medals except one and Ireland got that one remaining medal, there would be a data point at Y=1 with the label “2nd”.
That theory might work if the data point labels didn’t directly correspond with the Y axis labels.
Yeah but it’s not. At all.
They’ve beent taking single digit medals.
