« Reorientation in the French election |
| It's your fault when you use defaults »
@apollo_0 on twitter asks me to comment on this, by Scientific Britain:
Here's my comment:
Posted on May 02, 2017 at 01:35 PM | Permalink
It depends on whether the "fish" is the size of the unit (molecule or pint respectively) or the "fish" is the sum of the units. The original is talking about the sum of the units. So the fish in both instances takes up the entire pond, and so proportionally, within their own ponds, they must be "big." IMO, the analogy doesn't hold because the labels would be "Big fish in a small pond", "Big fish in a big pond". If the labels are for the units rather than the sum of units, then fish-wise, they should be "tiny fish in a small pond" and "small fish in a big pond".
The "wow" in the charts is the number of molecules/pint being propotionally greater than pints/ocean, and as the punchline, should come last. So for English speakers, it should be on the right. A little wordsmithing would help too. The small dot should be on the left, labled "The number of pints of water in the ocean." ("of water": clarifies). The big circle should be on the right, labeled "The number of water molecules in a pint." ("glass" is removed because it adds nothing). The chart should also clarify the ocean scope. Is it the Pacific Ocean or all oceans? If it's that latter, then the label should be "The number of pints of water in the world's oceans."
Ray Givler |
May 04, 2017 at 08:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.