A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.
DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.
A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.
A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.
Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]
[OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.
DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.
All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.
No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.
Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.
Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).
Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).
Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules
Don't be intentionally rude, ever.
Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.
Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.
Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.
Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.
Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.
Originally r/DataisBeautiful
The Washington Post article mentions a 1994 research paper by William Nordhaus as the source, but their link doesn't seem to work. Here's a working link to the paper:
https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/d1078.pdf
60 hours of labor wouldn't be enough to keep a campfire burning for 1 hour? And it took an hour of labor to keep an incandescent bulb on for just that one hour?
It's skewed by lighting efficiency as well. Note the last column on the right. This table is taken from the study linked in the OP
Also this is more a study on the efficiency of modern labor and how it's measured than anything else. What I gathered from the paper is that we as a society are not being paid our collective worth in our wages.
Depends on how big the fire is I suppose.
The research paper tries to adjust for light output. One oil lamp, or one campfire, makes less light than a modern incandescent bulb. It's saying you need to spend 60 hours gathering and splitting wood with stone tools to make a campfire with the same light output that a modern bulb could produce in 1 hour.
And 60 hours' worth of earnings in 1993 (when the paper was written) would buy you enough electricity for hundreds of thousands of hours of light with a modern bulb.
There are big assumptions necessary to come up with these numbers. The story is that the various technologies advanced by many orders of magnitude over time.
Aren't almost all modern bulbs LED?
I don't think anyone was using CFLs in 1950