5 ms·

I'm the author of this piece. If you have any questions, go ahead and I'll try to answer.

estefan 11y ago
What's the actual article? I get "Teaching women to fight today could stop rapes tomorrow". The string "60" doesn't appear anywhere...
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I had the same thing, then I tried in incognito and it worked. Probably adblocker or something.
  - estefan 11y ago
    Oh yeah, it works in incognito.
- davidbauer 11y ago
  Might be an issue with infinite scrolling on the Quartz site, works fine on my machine. Try this if the above link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/ http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  I think the sites dependent on flash or something. I thought it was just a bad headline until I saw some commenters mentioning article details, so I tried multiple browsers until one worked.
- Scramblejams 11y ago
  I've seen three different articles at that link so far. The latest is "Apple is setting itself up for a giant iPad." Is QZ just broken? EDIT: Now it's showing "Picasso = Genius". At the top the embedded link says "http://qz.com/335183 http://qz.com/335183 ", which matches the URL, but at the bottom it says "http://qz.com/425662 http://qz.com/425662 ". Very confusing. The downvotes in this thread are hilarious, it's like downvoting as a proxy for "Works for Me."
- davidbauer 11y ago
  Try this if the original link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/ http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/
phil_s_stein 11y ago
Is there a place where we can actually read the article? That site is very broken in my browser. I cannot scroll past the first few lines - the articles don't scroll independently. Edit: seems to be fixed now.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
azakai 11y ago
I found this sentence confusing or misleading, > In 1961, the earliest year the World Bank provides data for, the world was within 0.09 percentage points of a perfectly equal distribution. Ever since, the gap has widened; now men outnumber women on the planet by almost 60 million. It jumps from a percentage to an absolute number. What was the absolute number before? What is the percentage after?
- davidbauer 11y ago
  The reason I chose to mix the two was that comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be accurate since it would be distorted by overall population growth. That leaves you with comparing the percentages. In 2013, women accounted for 49.59% of all people, so that's .41 off a perfectly equal distribution. Yet .41 percentage points doesn't really give a good impression of what that actually means, while 60 million is a number readers can relate to more easily.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Whenever I see an article swap units mid-sentence it automatically makes me think they are doing it to bolster their argument because if they kept the same units, it wouldn't actually show what they wanted it to.
    - davidbauer 11y ago
      Yep, that's often true. Still think it's fair in this case, for the reasons explained above. 60 million are A LOT of people.
      - azakai 11y ago
        It's an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise excellent article, imo. Could instead mention percentages before and after, then stress the absolute number to get across the 60M figure.
      - davidbauer 11y ago
        Ok, point taken.

What's the actual article? I get "Teaching women to fight today could stop rapes tomorrow". The string "60" doesn't appear anywhere...

ikeboy 11y ago
I had the same thing, then I tried in incognito and it worked. Probably adblocker or something.
- estefan 11y ago
  Oh yeah, it works in incognito.
davidbauer 11y ago
Might be an issue with infinite scrolling on the Quartz site, works fine on my machine. Try this if the above link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/ http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/
vectorjohn 11y ago
I think the sites dependent on flash or something. I thought it was just a bad headline until I saw some commenters mentioning article details, so I tried multiple browsers until one worked.
Scramblejams 11y ago
I've seen three different articles at that link so far. The latest is "Apple is setting itself up for a giant iPad." Is QZ just broken? EDIT: Now it's showing "Picasso = Genius". At the top the embedded link says "http://qz.com/335183 http://qz.com/335183 ", which matches the URL, but at the bottom it says "http://qz.com/425662 http://qz.com/425662 ". Very confusing. The downvotes in this thread are hilarious, it's like downvoting as a proxy for "Works for Me."
davidbauer 11y ago
Try this if the original link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/ http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/

phil_s_stein 11y ago

Is there a place where we can actually read the article? That site is very broken in my browser. I cannot scroll past the first few lines - the articles don't scroll independently. Edit: seems to be fixed now.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

azakai 11y ago

I found this sentence confusing or misleading, > In 1961, the earliest year the World Bank provides data for, the world was within 0.09 percentage points of a perfectly equal distribution. Ever since, the gap has widened; now men outnumber women on the planet by almost 60 million. It jumps from a percentage to an absolute number. What was the absolute number before? What is the percentage after?

davidbauer 11y ago
The reason I chose to mix the two was that comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be accurate since it would be distorted by overall population growth. That leaves you with comparing the percentages. In 2013, women accounted for 49.59% of all people, so that's .41 off a perfectly equal distribution. Yet .41 percentage points doesn't really give a good impression of what that actually means, while 60 million is a number readers can relate to more easily.
- refurb 11y ago
  Whenever I see an article swap units mid-sentence it automatically makes me think they are doing it to bolster their argument because if they kept the same units, it wouldn't actually show what they wanted it to.
  - davidbauer 11y ago
    Yep, that's often true. Still think it's fair in this case, for the reasons explained above. 60 million are A LOT of people.
    - azakai 11y ago
      It's an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise excellent article, imo. Could instead mention percentages before and after, then stress the absolute number to get across the 60M figure.
    - davidbauer 11y ago
      Ok, point taken.