41 ms·
That doesn't quite follow since SF and NYC are already the highest population densities in the US. The fact that the residents don't want to allow greater dens
by dasil003 11y ago
That doesn't quite follow since SF and NYC are already the highest population densities in the US. The fact that the residents don't want to allow greater densities doesn't invalidate the correlation.
- curun1r 11y agoYes, it does. Demand is very different from density. The fact that one region happens to have both high density and high demand is coincidence, not correlation. For it to be a correlation, that would have to be the case in most places. Places like Mountain View, Palo Alto or even Beverly Hills and Malibu also have high demand with a much lower population density. Also, while it's trite to say, correlation doesn't not mean causation. Being a proxy means a causal relationship, not just a correlation. XKCD was arguing against maps that indicate a causal relationship. Each of the graphs in the comic don't just correlate with population density maps, they're the same because they're visualizing a trait that has no difference based on geography. That's in no way the case in this situation.
- cynicalkane 11y agoThe densest part of Chicago is approximately as dense as SF, but isn't so astronomically expensive.