4 ms·

> Beautiful visualization of data as usual I would disagree with that to an extent for the distribution below "I excluded the 20 most repetitive songs in the d

> Beautiful visualization of data as usual I would disagree with that to an extent for the distribution below "I excluded the 20 most repetitive songs in the dataset from the above chart. When you see what it looks like with them, you'll understand why". I had both distributions on screen so I could compare them, and was staring at them for a good while thinking I was missing something obvious. The animation that actually revealed the difference didn't start until I'd given up and scrolled the diagram most of the way off the screen. Had I scrolled a little faster to the next section (or possibly used page down/space), I would have missed the animation entirely.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
I didn't see the animation and was just as confused. I finally shook it off, but it made me more skeptical for the whole article, because I couldn't align with judgment of the author. Only now seeing your comment, I realised that there was an animation and now things make sense yes. I think I had scroll at the image + the paragraph below and once I read the paragraph I decided to scroll quite quickly and either to completely new page or I was already focused on the table, because that did seem interesting information. Thinking back now, it's weird how this one thing made me view the whole thing more skeptically, only to realise it was a miscommunication in a way.