I was asking as it has been shown again and again that most people believe they are in the middle-class, even when they are obviously not.

You are in the top 1% in the US. Which is clearly not the middle class. In LA/SF/NYC, you are in the top 2%, still not middle class at all.

Do you consider yourself rich or middle-class?

It's just that... what is the point? It's not like it's an original way of animating things. I get that it's more work than not animating, and for that, congrats. But sometimes it's not worth spending time on something that doesn't bring anything.

The static plot would give as much information, but we wouldn't have to wait for the end and pause to actually read the whole plot.

If you want to represent something in 4 of 5 dimensions, I get that animation can be useful, but for 2 dimensions, it's always a waste of time for the reader.

But people are free to do it. Just like we are free to inform these people that it adds nothing.

Weird choice to weigh the democratic index by the GDP. The 10 richest western countries make up for ~40% of the world GDP, but only ~9% of the world population.

I would understand not weighing by population as it would give too much weight to some countries, but the GDP does the same in a much worse way.

For the population, there is an reason for doing so: it gives the Democracy Index of an average world citizen. But for the GDP, it gives the Democracy Index of an average... US$.

Moreover, GDP (par capita) and Democracy Index are correlated, so it's problematic to weigh one by the other.

As I said below another post you made, don't do a regression if you don't have a model in mind. It may just be hypothetical, but you must have an explanation as to why you chose this regression in particular, other than "it fits pretty well". A 100th degree polynomial function will fit better, a Ngh degree polynomial, with N the number of points, will fit perfectly.

Also, the problem you have here is that you have "positive" outliers but you don't have negative outliers for the lowest values, because energy production can't go below 0. So you have a regression which is higher than the truth. You should find a way to identfy and eliminate these outliers.

And if you can't that's not a problem! We don't need a regression all the time. We see the relationship pretty well, the red line is not needed. It just shows a model which is obviously wrong for many reasons.

When you fit data, you must have a model in mind. You don't just take something that seems to fit well. Otherwise, a 547th degree polynomial will do the job, but it's really not useful.

Here, your fit seems to suggest that, when the wind is strong, fossil fuel usage increases again. What is the model, the hypothesis, which would explain that?

Also, have you checked if every coefficient of the model is statistically significant? I'd guess that the 3rd isn't.

My guess for the best fit would be something resembling a logistic function: when the wind tends to infinity, fossil fuels tend to 0. In your model, fossil fuels would tend to infinity, which is... unlikely.

If you don't want to come up with a model, you have solutions: a moving average or a local regression like LOESS, which has the advantage to give a confidence interval.

Conclusion: regressions need to mean something. They must not be chosen without a model, even just hypothetical, in mind.

France has salaries increasing way slower than other European countries. The government is trying to make it look like the inflation is not hitting France as hard as other countries, but the effect is the same, if not worse, than in countries like Belgium where salaries follow the inflation.

From this answer, I understand that all you really care about is the distribution of WPM among top songs. So you don't need to show length and number of words on the plot. The best plot for this would be a simple histogram. You would be able to see the maximum and the ratio between highest and lowest. You would also be able to put more songs in the plot, using data from other years.

But what about the labels? you could ask. Indeed, with a histogram, the reader wouldn't be able to see which song is where on the plot. But what's greagt is that it's not the point of a plot.

If your goal is to show people the number of WPM for each song, you just show a table with all the values in it. That way, people can sort it in alphabetical order or by WPM value.

If you are interested in outliers, you can still show the name of the songs, because by definition, there are not many outliers, so you will have enough space to write their names.

Thank you!

Yes, so? I indeed do things in my life which take time. Great point.

I am generally against animated plots, because there is almost always a better way to plot the data, but I usually understand the intention behind the animation. However, here, there is no point at all in animating this plot, except proving the world you can animate something and making us lose our time.