[Normal_gaussian]

What on earth is that H100 price trend graph. The equally spaced x-axis points are 2x6 months, 6x3 months, 9x1 month. The whole visualisation of the trend is ruined on the back of that.

There are liars, damned liars, and people who play silly buggers with scales.

[Diogenesian]

I think this is a severely compromised visualization but not actually misleading, either by design or in effect. Seems like they wanted to include the full picture - namely, that the 2026 spike is still less than the 2023 price when new, but doing all the data monthly would have been hard to read. Note that doing it all monthly would have made the derivative of 2026 more visually stark, so the way the graph is presented actually weakens their argument (albeit inconsequentially).

I think the best way to fix the graph would be shading or line texture to indicate the scale. The biggest problem is that the inconsistent scale is a surprise you only see upon close reading, after you've visually digested the trend. So the scale needs to be apparent in this first visual digest. (Sort of like how many logarithmic charts include thin axis marker lines in the body of the graph itself, so as to immediately inform a quick glance.)

[nh23423fefe]

i dont see how compressing the past ruins the present day extrapolation? How does the conclusion change for you if the graph was 3x wider on the left? The title is "rates are rising" is that not true?

[Normal_gaussian]

A graph is much more than one conclusion; in fact, almost the entire point of graphing is to allow the comparison of "shapes" and to easily hypothesise about associations across datasets.

This graph misrepresents the rate the price declines and the length of time it has been stable for, which throws off nearly all non-trivial conclusions.

[nh23423fefe]

It doesn't mis-represent it. If you think that, then you think log plots misrepresent rates.

[Normal_gaussian]

A) a log scale is self consistent

B) be careful about telling other people what they think

[danlitt]

That specific conclusion is unaffected, but that doesn't make it okay. If they used fake numbers, but the conclusion were still the same, you presumably wouldn't think that was okay either?

[danlitt]

I had to look 3 times to see what you meant. That's pure evil!