Slashdot Mirror


Calling Out GE's Misleading Data Visualizations

theodp writes "Stephen Few never did suffer data visualization fools gladly. After seeing an oil exec (mis)use data viz to put a positive spin on Gulf Oil Spill cleanup efforts, Few felt compelled to call out BP. And now it's General Electric that's got Few's dander up: 'The series of interactive data visualizations that have appeared on GE's website over the last two years,' writes Few, 'has provided a growing pool of silly examples. They attempt to give the superficial impression that GE cares about data while in fact providing almost useless content. They look fun, but communicate little. As such, they suggest that GE does not in fact care about the information and has little respect for the intelligence and interests of its audience. This is a shame, because the stories contained in these data sets are important.' Concerned about his strong reactions to poorly designed data visualizations, Few asked his neuropsychologist wife whether he might be overreacting. She, too, agrees that GE's natural gas visualizations are maddening, which one might be tempted to dismiss as predictable, although Eyeo Festival presenter Michal Migurski also declares GE's effort 'one terrible, terrible bit of nonsense.'"

82 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Informative

    "never did suffer data visualization fools gladly" == "Few despises bad charts"
    "got Few's dander up" == "Few lost patience."

    Recommendation: steer clear of the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr. There is a difference between business English and literary English.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  2. Re:Pathetic. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's good for GE is good for America.

    What's good for GE shows up as legislation in America.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  3. Re:Pathetic. by sanzibar · · Score: 1

    ala wind subsidies

  4. The most useful one by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After looking at the various visualizations the only one that is worth anything is the third one that shows the years of remaining reserves for each of the fossil fuels. Even that one isn't that impressive. Also I don't get the use of the Sierpinski triangle, Apollonian gasket, and Sierpinski carpet style shapes for representing each fuel source. I haven't looked at much data visualization, but it doesn't seem the use of these doesn't add anything.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:The most useful one by Noughmad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't get the use of the Sierpinski triangle, Apollonian gasket, and Sierpinski carpet style shapes for representing each fuel source. I haven't looked at much data visualization, but it doesn't seem the use of these doesn't add anything.

      I don't know much about visualization either, but this one is really obvious. Empty spaces add perceived volume to the graph, so that it looks bigger (compared to the full square that show how much we use each year). Our brains don't know how to calculate the percentage of empty space into the perceived size.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:The most useful one by Silvanis · · Score: 2

      I don't think that one is useful, either. You have a slider at the bottom to adjust consumption rates, but there's two different scales (-2 to 5 and -1 to 4) AND a confusing note below that. Since the sliders are at 0%, is that assuming no increase, or should you adjust the slider to match the average increase listed? (which would make all 3 run out at roughly the same time)...who knows? There's no context to work with, just random sizes and shapes that pretend to be data.

    3. Re:The most useful one by craighansen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adjust the sliders to match the production increases over the last ten years, and you get 38 years left for oil, 42 years left for natural gas, and 44 years left for coal. Which makes the premise that "The World has Huge Natural Gas Reserves" totally false, unless you have no children and only expect to live for 40 years or less.

      How many years of Sunlight Reserves do we have left?

      Over 4,000,000,000 years.

      Do you need a visualization to understand the difference between 40 years and 4,000,000,000 years?

    4. Re:The most useful one by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Adjust the sliders to match the production increases over the last ten years, and you get 38 years left for oil, 42 years left for natural gas, and 44 years left for coal. Which makes the premise that "The World has Huge Natural Gas Reserves" totally false, unless you have no children and only expect to live for 40 years or less.

      How many years of Sunlight Reserves do we have left?

      Over 4,000,000,000 years.

      Do you need a visualization to understand the difference between 40 years and 4,000,000,000 years?

      A visualization would not help to explain this ratio. People rarely understand numbers with more than a couple of digits, and would probably just classify it emotionally as "something bigger than 10".

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    5. Re:The most useful one by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      In that case, just use a log scale. Then the bar for solar is less than 10 times the bar for natural gas, and back in the realm of the understandable again.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    6. Re:The most useful one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why I ignore hand wavy comparisons and such. If the final answer is not deduced rigorously then it is worthless. Using valid mathematics to then display the information in a way that we must interpret without precision and without accuracy is a dead giveaway that the data is obscured.

    7. Re:The most useful one by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      "Over 4,000,000,000 years." You need to divide by 2 to take in account nighttime :) more if you want to account for clouds too :) but since you can't own wind or sun (yet) GE doesn't care

    8. Re:The most useful one by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wind blows across land, sun shines on land, you can own land, and many of our largest corporations own big pieces of it because government handed it to them on a platter in exchange for their contributions. You can't build a solar plant on BLM land but you can drill for oil or mine coal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:The most useful one by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In that case, just use a log scale. ... and back in the realm of the understandable again.

      You do realise this is supposed to be targeted at the lowest common denominator and not your typical slashdot readership right?

  5. Summary v2 by thePowersGang · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since the summary is so difficult to understand, the jist of the article is that GE's visualisations (I will not grace them with the title "graph") are completely useless in comparing datasets, and are completely confusing to use. This seems to indicate that GE (like many companies) like to fiddle with the presentation of data to push their agenda. (Shock, Horror!) Sadly, this case is an insult to good design principles and statisticians everywhere.

    1. Re:Summary v2 by djlemma · · Score: 1

      To me it didn't seem like GE was intentionally making bad graphics to push an agenda.. It's more that they said "Hey, it would be nice to make some graphics to demonstrate X and Y" without realizing that a simple bar graph would have done a much better job than that crap they have up there now.

      BP, on the other hand.. that was deliberate misleading..

    2. Re:Summary v2 by Tanktalus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe I'm too naive, but I suspect it's not even that malicious. I think it's merely that marketing folk got a hold of some numbers that the company wanted to put a positive spin on, and thought they (the marketing folk) were statisticians. About the only thing I learned from my Engineering Statistics course was that statistics looks obvious, but is far more complicated than it looks (at least, if you want to approach accuracy and such). I highly doubt that your average marketing drone has taken that much in post-secondary level statistics, and still think that a simple, but pretty, graph conveys the information they want it to.

      I actually suspect that BP was about the same. A graph was made, the presenter had no fundamental understanding of it, and merely drew conclusions from the picture, the same as your average person might. And, since statistics is far harder than it appears (you know, actually paying attention to details), average people might accept the misconstruction as truth. I don't think it was deliberate on the part of the presenter, merely uneducated.

      It'd be nice if presenters were actually knowledgeable in the subject they're presenting. However, for some reason, techies spurn the limelight more than average, while confidence men soak it up. I don't see a switch happening too often. (Gates, Jobs - these are exceptions, not the norm; most big-corp CEOs are former sales people, not former techies.)

    3. Re:Summary v2 by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Marketing folk are malicious.

    4. Re:Summary v2 by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my experience in the corporate world has been that almost nobody knows anything about data visualization. It's a rare person who even goes beyond the default Excel graphs. Most people don't read books, either, so getting them to read something called "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" is a non-starter.

      The GE guy seems like an artist who thinks graphics have to be exciting instead of informative. The BP guy doesn't seem dishonest at all -- he gives a rough daily average right on his graph. Whether you use cumulative collection or daily collection, one graph isn't going to tell the whole story. The graphics here aren't great, but in these cases I'd care more about whether the data supports the overall message.

      --
      Visit the
    5. Re:Summary v2 by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "without realizing that a simple bar graph would have done a much better job than that crap they have up there now."

      You can't use graphs from the eighties nowadays, it's uncool.

    6. Re:Summary v2 by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    7. Re:Summary v2 by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

      Which is a shame, because poor visualization takes up even more time. A lot of it is just basic stuff like labeling your data and thinking about what you're doing. Get that wrong and you have a dozen people in a meeting trying to guess at what a graph is telling them. That adds up pretty quick -- 12 people * 5 minutes = 1 man-hour. Tufte has a one-day training class, and the books themselves are pretty short (and mostly pictures). There are lots of web sites, too. Communications skills are a career booster, and interesting stuff besides. This is well worth even a week of your personal time.

      Really, though, I think this is something that belongs in schools. We spend 12+ years learning how to read and write and studying examples of verbal communication, but visual communication, which is almost equally important in today's world, gets... nothing. Maybe a few Powerpoint projects that teach all the wrong lessons, or some halfhearted formatting guidelines for lab reports.

      --
      Visit the
    8. Re:Summary v2 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      BP, on the other hand.. that was deliberate misleading..

      Of course it was. A cleanup per day figure rather than a total volume would look bad not because BP wasn't doing a good job, but because the natural progression of the graph is to follow a downward trend after an initial spike. Big blotches are easy to clean, when you exhaust your low-hanging fruit for the same effort you get lower results when you have to start climbing the tree. No company would present a graph that looks like that when you can trend it up in total oil collected.

      Mind you this graph which was shown in the article is also deliberately misleading in the opposite way. The total oil collected isn't at all important unless compared with the total oil going in, same with the daily graphs. Those bits of information are critically missing. Right now it looks like just another douchebag taking an opportunity to slag off at the company rather than getting up of their arse and doing something about it.

  6. Re:Pathetic. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    What's good for GE is good for India

    FTFY

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  7. Not to go too far off topic... by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

    but GE is Evil.

    Jeff Immelt is Satan.

    1. Re:Not to go too far off topic... by maxume · · Score: 2

      My how the fallen have fallen.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  8. What about the fonts? by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

    At first I was thinking that this story was about GE trying to push its agenda or doing something evil. But I RTFA and this is actually about this guy complaining that people are using the wrong type of chart and making poor design decisions. The big punch is that his wife agrees with him.

    I am so shaken up by this story, I know I will get all nervous the next time I insert SmartArt charts in Powerpoint - I would be so ashamed to end up publicly flogged on this guy's strongly-worded blog...

    Reminds me of a former coworker who is spending his evenings writing blog entries about companies that dare use Arial instead of Helvetica on their websites.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:What about the fonts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am so shaken up by this story, I know I will get all nervous the next time I insert SmartArt charts in Powerpoint - I would be so ashamed to end up publicly flogged on this guy's strongly-worded blog...

      "This guy" is one of the most well known authors of the visualization community.

      Check out his website. How many people have a wikipedia page of one of their inventions?

    2. Re:What about the fonts? by methano · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with Arial?

      I think I now use Arial because most computers come with a zillion fonts and Arial is at the top and Helvetica is lost somewhere in the middle.

    3. Re:What about the fonts? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I never understood the difference, either...until I got into publishing (on a small scale). I had a brief but torrid affair with Verdana as a body text (always use serif fonts for body text, shows you how much I knew at the time).

      I will never forget the moment that it dawned on me that Arial is just a cheap whore compared to Verdana's classy lady. I understood. OMFG.

      Why did Microsoft "innovate" Arial? Because they didn't want to pay license fees. What, like Micro$oft doesn't have enough folding cash lying around? So, like everything Microsoft did, they made a cheap ripoff of an existing standard. Really opened my eyes, and it's not like I was pro-MS at the time. Arial is *just different enough* from Verdana to avoid a lawsuit. I'm sure some PHB got a six-figure bonus for that "innovation".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:What about the fonts? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      First thing I saw was a face full of mustard yellow. Didn't like it.

    5. Re:What about the fonts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a lot more than "fonts", and a bit closer to deception than you're making it out to be. Visualizations are supposed to convey information quickly. When they don't it just becomes a series of pretty pictures people look at that give the reader the impression that they've learned something. That's a form of deception. It's not outright lying, but it's also certainly not aesthetics like font type.

      It's too bad you expected the wrong thing going into the article. But it sounds like you're letting your own fallen expectations influence the rest of the article.

    6. Re:What about the fonts? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Arial is a knockoff of Helvetica. Design people hate this, even more than they hate Helvetica. It's one of the things that can be used to distinguish someone who knows a little bit about the subject from someone who doesn't, and as such is really just a bit of snobbery.

    7. Re:What about the fonts? by dkf · · Score: 2

      The problem is, the font snobs don't design fonts to handle Unicode (or hide the ones that they've done that on behind paywalls). Those of us who work with things other than western european languages (e.g., russian, japanese, even math!) like to use Arial as it has much better coverage of the glyph-space. As a bonus, it's widely deployed too. Such practical considerations trump the font snobs regard in my eyes, and in those of many other people too.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    8. Re:What about the fonts? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Arial is radically different than Verdana in the horizontal space it consumes. And since they have shipped both fonts since forever (but not Helvetica), I think you have something confused.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  9. Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by DaveGod · · Score: 2

    ...then perhaps we'd better not even get started on the quality of the underlying data.

    The sole purpose of corporations providing information is to convince the public of something that will benefit the company. From inception to design through data collection, analysis and reporting there is a defined marketing objective and it never involved "let's find out". Yet we treat with less scepticism than reports from an independent academic that at least in theory has survived a thorough peer review - though even that tends to assumes the technical parameters operated were correct. How often do you see reference to, say, questionnaires in the methodology which then goes on to even let you see a copy of the questionnaire?

    1. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by elgol · · Score: 1

      While you are right about the marketing end, you are incorrect in extending the marketing objective's influence into the inception, design, and data collection phase. Sure, they display simplified graphs to the general public in order to sway opinion. Why do they do it? Because the underlying data suggests that there is money to be made. You can bet that there is a lot of underlying data, which was obtained, analyzed, and reported internally at no small cost. GE needs to convince itself first before it tries to convince others.

    2. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by decora · · Score: 1

      somewhere between the computer lab (funded by HP), the new classroom (funded by BP), the endowed professor chair (funded by Motorola) and the John Witherspoon Sciences Annex (heir of an oil fortune), i managed to see one little girl on a hunger strike about some nigerian dictator killing his people so that he could steal their land for an oil pipeline.

      i told her to stop this silliness, and think about all the 'free enterprise' this nigerian fellow (im sure that 'dictator' is a stretch. he only killed a few people who were rioting, obviously criminals trying to abuse the police). the real villians are the brainwashed academics, like my professor of differential equations, who keeps going off about some guy named 'einstein', apparently an icon to liberals and other communist types.

    3. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      You are not seriously using The Simpsons "won't somebody think of the children" argument, are you? What the fuck does this have to do with the fact that idealogical conformity is a fact of life in the academic West?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      See, this is the problem with fiction nowadays. It's almost all absurd in it's portrayal of the human condition.

      Yes, it would be nice to believe that "one little girl" would be so self-sacrificing, if not terribly astute, as to stand on the side of some street somewhere in the US starving herself to death, thinking she'll be noticed and that the wonderful people of that country would suddenly mend their ways and cease toiling to make things better for themselves as well as others, thus bringing about the downfall or change of heart (it's not made clear) of the evil dictator who brought about her plight in the first place.

      Even fiction needs logic.

    6. Re:Well if you think the visualisation is poor... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What on earth does that picture have to do with anything? How does it even relate to the political persuasion of professors?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by Elbereth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Normally, I'd agree with you. However, as a New Yorker, I can tell you that these phrases are used (or at least known) in the coastal Northeast (NY, NJ, PA, MD). I can't say one way or the other how a New Englander might react, because I've never been out that way (except for a brief foray into Boston once). It's not something that we commonly use, but we understand the idiom. Whether that's from linguistic evolution or global telecommunications, I don't know. I didn't have any trouble understanding the summary, but I find the guy's ire a bit perplexing. He got mad because someone made a misleading visualization? He's going to have a heart attack at 40.

  11. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by gomiam · · Score: 1

    I've lived and traveled throughout the United States of America, and I'm pretty sure that no American would write that way. You wouldn't hear such phrases used in places like California, New York, Colorado, Washington, Maine, or in the mid-western states.

    I find it interesting that I could read that summary with no problems even when I'm not a native English speaker. Perhaps you should read a bit more, because I have read people from those "places" use those phrases. By the way, an interesting link about getting your dander up.

  12. Typical liberal butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I love how the submitter tries to validate his submission with a paper that has "social justice" in the first paragraph. What a load of crap.

    Off to slam Comic Sans, laters.

  13. Yeah, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They just described 95% of the internet and 99% of what people do with computers these days. There used to be a time when computers where made by serious people to be used by serious people to solve serious problems. Now we don't. You're the ones who wanted that, deal with it, geeks.

  14. When someone refers to 'social justice' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    .. I reach for my revolver, because it means that they want to impose their view on me and consider themselves justified in doing so.

    Justice equals law equals the desire to use force. Otherwise they would talk about 'social suggestions' instead.

  15. Re:Pathetic. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    ala wind subsidies

    With as much wind as we have, one would think that it needed no subsidies, but it is somehow believable that it is.

    --

    When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, and scream and shout.

  16. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why? The summary, aside from the spelling, was perfectly valid idiomatic English. No need to learn some colonial dialect.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Fault McCandless, not GE by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think we should make a distinction between GE, the company hosting the site, and Stephen McCandless, the rather famous data visualization specialist who created the figures. (Here's his website: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ )

    The problem is not that the data presented are not useful, or that they're deliberately intended to deceive, which we could fault GE for. As I see it, the problem is that the graphs themselves are crap. They hide useful information, and they use shape and color in ways that seem to provide information but don't, and in general they focus on the aesthetic appeal of the charts at the expense of the data.

    When I first encountered McCandless's site a few years ago, I really loved it, but as time goes on it's begun to piss me off. For example, his chart on relative radiation risks:
          http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/
    Logarithmic charts are always difficult to explain to the public, but the triangular shape of his graph makes it even worse, suggesting a linear increase in dose. He compares it to XKCD's chart, but his version is inferior in every way. XKCD uses color and shape to provide information; in McCandless's version color and shape have negative information content.

    Another example: a graph of time travel plots in film and TV (minus Dr. Who):
            http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
    The curvy lines look nice, but all anyone can make out of this is a confusing snarl of lines too tangled to parse. Once again, shape has negative information content in this image.

    But the king of the bad visualizations is probably another graph McCandless did for GE:
              http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/co2/#/flights_London_Tokyo
    Here, there's no way to intercompare various quantities, and figure out which of two choices is bigger. Shape, color and position are once again meaningless or misleading (things are shown the same size even when they're 8x different), quantities are in incompatible units, and worst of all some of the numbers are flat-out wrong (for instance, fuel usage of aircraft).

    But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

    1. Re:Fault McCandless, not GE by anthroboy · · Score: 2

      I think we should make a distinction between GE, the company hosting the site, and Stephen McCandless, the rather famous data visualization specialist who created the figures.

      Yes, the latter was hired to produce the misleading figures, and the former selected, hired and paid for that work. Why exactly does this exonerate GE of responsibility for the images it commissioned and hosts on its site?

    2. Re:Fault McCandless, not GE by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      When I first encountered McCandless's site a few years ago, I really loved it

      Can you explain why? I would have thought that anyone who has ever considered data and the visualization of it would see his site and pretty much instantly realise it was pile of useless drek.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    3. Re:Fault McCandless, not GE by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Because he actually gave a damn. Information presentation has recently come into vogue, but a couple years ago, it was tough to find people who recognized the value of a good chart. Also, many of the things he links to which are done by other people (example 1 example 2) are quite good.

    4. Re:Fault McCandless, not GE by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Sounds like modern art syndrome to me. I'm sure if you go to a GE office building, you will find ugly pieces of modern art. It does not mean GE is trying to subvert the human ideals of beauty or that they are the cause of bad art, it means they bought into the same crap so many others do. Buy it because it's famous and respected, not because you like it yourself.

      GE didn't hire the guy to produce misleading figures, they hired him because he's a well-respected data visualization expert (even in many comments here) who happens to produce misleading figures.

  18. Re:Pathetic. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Uh, that was Union Carbide, which is now owned by Dow Chemical, which has nothing to do with GE, other than that they're both industrial companies.

  19. Other GE Visualizations: Rank-And-Yank Curves by theodp · · Score: 3

    Didn't stop them from losing tens of billions of dollars in the financial meltdown, but GE is a big fan of Forced Ranking: "Jack Welch, General Electric's former CEO, is often associated with a 20-70-10 distribution: the top 20 percent is rewarded for best performance, the middle 70 percent is rated 'average' and the bottom 10 percent is coached for improvement. The 'rank-and-yank' system, also associated with Jack Welch, automatically terminates employees in the bottom category, allowing organizations to purge the worst performers."

    1. Re:Other GE Visualizations: Rank-And-Yank Curves by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You would think so, but an automated culling system actually has very negative impact on fostering teamwork (critical in a company that relies on innovation). After all who wants to share information when someone else could use it to edge above you in the performance review. It also doesn't take into account the quality of your staff. If you have the best people and you still need to fire the bottom 10% what message does that send?

  20. Other GE Visualizations: GE/McKinsey Matrix by theodp · · Score: 1

    Pac-Man meets Tic-Tac-Toe: "Though the GE/McKinsey Matrix is more sophisticated than the BCG matrix and can provide higher value information for the executive management, it has several flaws and limitations..."

    1. Re:Other GE Visualizations: GE/McKinsey Matrix by lennier · · Score: 1

      I call Inky, Blinky and Clyde in the corner pocket. Cherries are trumps.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  21. Re:Stupid we are by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You have a point. Corporations are run by people. LLC stands for "Limited Liability Corporation." Corporations protect owners and employees from blame and lawsuits when something goes wrong. The corporation keeps owners from suffering the consequences when something goes wrong or even when someone does something wilfully negligent. This is why the modern corporation is a great enabler of evil... when something is done wrong, like the poisoning of a body of water or the financial ruining of thousands of people, the is no one but a "legal fiction" to punish.

  22. yup. a phrase that andrew carnegie by decora · · Score: 1

    ..

    ok actually andrew carnegie used this phrase, and so did some other industrialists in the early 1900s, when they did things like Henry Ford raising the wages of all of his workers something like five fold.

  23. Re:WTF does the summary mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the summary could actually try to summarize what is going on. For example it could let us know:

    * Who is Stephen Few? Is he an expert in this filed or some random blogger?
    * What data on the GE website are they talking about? If there are many different sets of data give an example of one.
    * What is 'Eyeo Festival'?

    Providing some basic context lets us know whether TFA is worth reading - as is stands it just bunch of meaningless drivel.

  24. Re:Pathetic. by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    Well, take the visual out of data VISUALIZATION, what is left?

  25. Not only that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    , Few asked his neuropsychologist wife whether he might be overreacting. She, too, agrees

    Few then asked his mom about GE's data visualization who replied "Yes it's just horrible. Not as good as my pretty little boy could do."

  26. Re:Pathetic. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's almost impossible to compete with the vast fossil fuel subsidies. People who mock the costs of alternative energy sources seem to forget that one of the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  27. Re:Stupid we are by swalve · · Score: 5, Informative

    Limited Liability doesn't mean what you think it does. It provides a wall of separation between owners/shareholders and employees, but it does nothing to limit the liability of individuals doing bad acts. If someone does something bad, doing so under the guise of an LLC doesn't shield them from legal liability. Merely from financial liability if the actors are acting within the confines of their fiduciary responsibility.

  28. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by bmo · · Score: 2

    >"never did suffer data visualization fools gladly"

    suffer: verb - to put up with, to endure, to tolerate

    data visualization fools - collective noun - idiots that don't know how to draw a graph.

    gladly: adverb - enjoy with a smile. this word modifies the verb "suffer"

    To rewrite the sentence fragment:

    "never did gladly tolerate idiots that can't draw a good graph"

    I like the original better.

    > and "got Few's dander up"

    If you've ever angered an animal enough to provoke a fight or flight response, its fur stands on end and its dander (skin flakes and dried saliva from grooming) is disturbed in a cloud as it moves. This can be seen if backlit. It's pissed.

    It's good imagery.

    --
    BMO

  29. Re:Pathetic. by CFTM · · Score: 1

    What's good for GE is good for GE share holders. If the the board of GE is not acting in this way they are not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility. GE does not care about America anymore than it cares about any other country. Go away shill.

  30. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by bmo · · Score: 1

    As a New Englander (a Rhode Islander, even) yes, we do use these idioms.

    They are more picturesque than boring "standard" English.

    --
    BMO

  31. Re:Pathetic. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    What's good for GE certainly doesn't help the IRS. Biggest company in the world, and paying practically no taxes.

  32. truth is stranger than fiction by decora · · Score: 1

    which is why nobody believes it.

    there were a couple of protests about 10 years ago about an oil company dealing with some dictators in the western pacific, cant even remember the names.

    one of the local 'professional student protestor' groups had this girl who went on a hunger strike over it.

  33. Re:Pathetic. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Uhhh did you read the link? GE which was bailed out by American taxpayers instead of using that money to...oh I don't know...keep their American workers instead took that money and promptly offshored a large chunk of their workforce and the CEO had the balls to brag "These aren't the low paying jobs, these are the good jobs, We are sending them to India because that is where the consumers are"

    Well no shit the consumers are there you traitorous dirtbag who frankly should be shot, the REASON the consumers are there is because you and your dirtbag friends offshored more than 20,000 FACTORIES in the last decade alone!

    So this has NOTHING to do with abusing third world countries except that being able to poison the land and treat workers like dogs is considered a nice bonus to these bastards, no what we are talking about here is companies taking hand outs to then fuck us over with the money which is why we should demand payback at 75% interest RIGHT NOW and if they don't? They are banned. No GE products, no GE businesses, not even the CEO will be allowed to set foot on American soil and any assets they have here seized.

    But of course that will never happen because our congress critters and dear leader are too busy cashing their bribery checks thanks to Citizens United to give a fuck. Hell the CEO that pulled this shit? Got to enjoy having GE PAY NO TAXES for most of this past decade!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  34. Re:Pathetic. by sanzibar · · Score: 1

    the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.

    Did you consider reliability and cost in your market analysis?

  35. facts versus message by manaway · · Score: 1

    Informative post, except for this:

    But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

    Megacorporations are presenting a message alright, but it's not one of information. Rather it's delivering messages that make them either look good or confuse the issue, or both. Ever read How to Lie with Statistics? Megacorporations are not filled with dumb marketing people, they are almost certainly acquainted with such techniques. Are they lying to themselves as well as us? I don't know and I don't care. Fry's visualizations, and now McCandless's artsy ones, were chosen for good reason. They work. Even a person who is interested in factual information is diverted to blame the graphic designer instead of exploring the issue. My opinion is that people like Fry and McCandless, and especially the corporations who hire them, are trolling experts.

    If interested in informative graphic design, check out Hans Rosling for an engaging presentation on population, or the Knuth of graphic designers Edward Tufte on analytical design and human factors. If you want to know more about fossil fuel problems, check out sources other than fossil fuel profiteers. For example Bartlett's more factual presentation on limited supplies and exponential growth.

    "Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." -- Edward Tufte

  36. Re:Can somebody translate the summary into English by kwoff · · Score: 1

    [I don't] suffer fools gladly is a crude way of pointing out that you're an arrogant douchebag.

    Probably why St. Paul used it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffer_fools_gladly

    dander is redneck slang for anger.

    There's a good explanation of its origins here: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/289.html

  37. I palindrome I by lennier · · Score: 1

    When I hear the phrase "When I hear the phrase $x, I reach for my $y", I reach for my Quine.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  38. Re:Pathetic. by slick7 · · Score: 1

    So this has NOTHING to do with abusing third world countries except that being able to poison the land and treat workers like dogs is considered a nice bonus to these bastards, no what we are talking about here is companies taking hand outs to then fuck us over with the money which is why we should demand payback at 75% interest RIGHT NOW and if they don't? They are banned. No GE products, no GE businesses, not even the CEO will be allowed to set foot on American soil and any assets they have here seized.

    But of course that will never happen because our congress critters and dear leader are too busy cashing their bribery checks thanks to Citizens United to give a fuck. Hell the CEO that pulled this shit? Got to enjoy having GE PAY NO TAXES for most of this past decade!

    The reason companies outsource to foreign nations is due to being able to reap the rewards of the American tax system.
    I have no problem with companies sending jobs to other countries, as long as those same companies take their administration, secretaries, CPA's, their board of directors with them. The American tax system should be for American companies hiring American workers.
    As for the abuses of the foreign workforce, soon enough they will wise up and start demanding higher wages, it's already happening in China. These same companies will then return to this country for the cheap labor. Personally, these companies should be told to go back where they came from. The politicians need a good dose of reality, 10 to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth could be a start.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  39. Does anyone EVER believe corporate data? by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    Seriously, corporate data is always compromised and is the worst sort of misleading propaganda. It doesn't matter if it's a drug company, a software company,. a hardware company, an oil company, an airline, whatever. The corporate citizen has no character, integrity, principles, or purpose other than advancing the goals of the corporation...and whatever data it puts out reflects that. The only corporate data that is ever even remotely honest is the financial data and that's only because it is audited by somewhat-independent outside accounting professionals, although Enron showed us that even that data can be doctored.

  40. Re:Pathetic. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    It's almost impossible to compete with the vast fossil fuel subsidies. People who mock the costs of alternative energy sources seem to forget that one of the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.

    Someone trying to site a wind turbine will be met with a suit by environmentalists or nimbys. Economics is not what stops wind energy.

  41. Re:Pathetic. by shilly · · Score: 1

    Do you come on every thread with a vaguely green theme and spew horseshit? In case you hadn't noticed, the US gov't has funded and fought wars to maintain stability of oil and other fossil fuel supplies. These wars cost a material percentage of the US's wealth, which is certainly not true for renewables. And of course, this type of subsidy is only one small part of how petrocompanies are subsidised.

    Additionally, your point about tax cuts not being subsidies is fundamentally flawed. The issue is not what taxationis charged -- it is about whether there is a level playing field. For energy, there is certainly not.

  42. A frighteningly short time by bityz · · Score: 1

    The real story is summed up by the text of the first graphic: "The world has huge natural gas reserves" "63 years left". A frighteningly short time.

  43. the book by decora · · Score: 1

    is called 'our times' (part of a series) from the early 1900s by some guy whose name i cant remember.

  44. Re:Pathetic. by shilly · · Score: 1

    It's a shame your logic doesn't match your vocabulary. Why the fuck would you think that I think that *every* argument contrary to mine is horseshit? Do you not see the logical fallacy and essential narcissim (to use your oh-so-clever phrasing) in imagining that because I disparage your argument in this way, I do the same with everyone else? I disparage your argument as horseshit because it is internally inconsistent, is contrary to the evidence available to us, and is clearly driven by your ideological motivation rather than any care for the facts. Back in your box, twatmeister, where you can learn not to use words like "definitive" to describe arguments you then go on to rubbish.