2 ms·
How did you determine that? I saw no indication that the scale had ever changed (from the starting definition of 1 pixel per $1,000). At a certain point it tell
by BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
How did you determine that? I saw no indication that the scale had ever changed (from the starting definition of 1 pixel per $1,000). At a certain point it tells you how much money a vertical column of pixels represents, but that's still based on the original scale (factored by the fixed height of the shaded region).
- karmakaze 3y agoThe first three areas are shown as square-shaped rectangles. Then at $1b, it switches to using a fixed height thus the 'size' is a linear dimension $amount/height rather than sqrt($amount). Technically all these have the correct number of pixels, but we can perceive a larger magnitude range when laid out in squares rather than long rectangles with a limited/fixed height. There's nothing special about using a line, square, or cube to illustrate amounts. However if I were trying to have people actually get a sense of a large range I would use cubes as that's the highest dimension we can intuitively grasp. e.g. picking up a metal object of visible volume weighs about as much as we expect.