Need I say more?
For the first time at Stanford, I’m taking a class which I have to watch online. It’s amazing how inefficient this is. I wish I could say it takes me 2.5 hours to watch a 1.5 hour lecture online because I’m replaying sections I misunderstand. Hopefully I’ll settle into the region of learning soon. Today I spent 0 minutes watching my 90 minute lecture, though…
There’s some great stuff going on in the visual information world outside of my posts (hard to believe, right?). I thought I’d highlight some here.
First up is actually by a fellow Stanford student, Edward Segel. It’s a slick but simple recap of all of Pitchfork‘s album reviews from 2010, with a nice interface. If you’re like me and you hate reading words, then use this to skip the details of the Pitchfork reviews and go straight for the heart of the matter with the numerical album ratings. Well done, Edward. Pitchfork should be working harder to get a nice normal distribution.
This next one is all about color. Edgina simply posts a series of photos every day based on a color theme. The brilliant step was taken by dvdp when he noticed how awesome the time-mapped archive of all the images is. You wouldn’t be hurt by following either of those blogs.
Graphing Shakespeare is a sure way to work out both sides of your brain. These detailed script diagrams from Understanding Shakespeare are a visual and literary treat. Ditch the spark notes!.
A new take on people and perfection, this graphic is a great conversation starter. It’s very similar to the classic one: When you’re in college you get to pick two out of friends, school, and sleep.
Science nerds here at Stanford are constantly complaining about the scientific inaccuracies in movies, but it’s now nicely consolidated in a simple chart. Or maybe I just find this interesting after my roommate and I calculated that Iron Man would not be able to fly, even if we assumed his “hot pads” were hot enough to excite all the deuterium in the atmosphere enough to create a fusion reaction and propel him forward. Tony Stark must know something we don’t, but that’s not surprising.
Hope those will satisfy your graph cravings until the next TUSGraph. If not, stop by Sporcle!
It’s been a rough start to the quarter, kids. My classes have already been disrupted twelve times by cell phones, with the distribution shown above. I’m fairly sure all the emails and texts were on iPhones so they were easily identified, and I assumed it was a call if it was any extended ringtone. Of course, the phone call is the most embarrassing by an order of magnitude for three reasons:
1. You undoubtedly have the weirdest ringtone. No, no one else understands that it is the main theme from the soundtrack of your favorite Bollywood film.
2. Text and email notifications are a simple beep sometimes with a nice background vibration, but calls can last for thirty seconds. Plenty of time to figure out exactly where the offender is sitting.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, the offender scrambles like they are disarming a bomb to turn off their phones. My favorite is either when they frantically open all the pockets of their bag looking for it, or when they almost fall out of their seat trying to get it out of their pants pocket quickly.
Last quarter, someone even listened to a voicemail in one of my small lectures. Appalling.
And for the record, my phone as never gone off in class. Indication of responsible phone etiquette, or lack of friends? You decide.
(Sorry if the icon plot is a bit ridiculous. I’m trying to experiment with different graph styles this quarter.)
It should also be noted that according to the Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven rule, at age 23, you are still eligible to date someone of age 18.5.
Which is why I’m a bigger fan of the Three-Fifths-Your-Age-Plus-Six rule. Do the math. It makes sense.
This year, Stanford Housing found a new way to screw up the draw! They forgot that staff members in row houses get singles, so they overbooked the singles in almost every row house. The result is mayhem in most of the row houses that will result in either staff members losing their singles (which would be absurd – staff members should quit if they try and force this to happen) or people who got premium rooms in a row house getting doubles or moving to a different house. It’s just a terrible situation in general, and every year I’m amazed at how housing finds a new way to blow it.
One of the great mysteries of graduation day; you don’t learn all that much at commencement, yet your value increases greatly in the seconds you receive your diploma. As far as I’m concerned, hiring Stanford students for the summer has to be one of the best bargains for labor around.
Congratulations to Men’s Volleyball for bringing home Stanford’s first National Championship of the year! The victory was not only a fantastic athletic display for a full Maples Pavillion, but also a remarkable ‘come-back’ story, as the team went 3-25 only three years ago.
I took the liberty of analyzing their astonishing improvement. Assuming the win rate was growing at an exponentially decaying rate (so it reaches 1 at year infinity), I used my predictive equation (R^2 = .9442) to estimate that the team will win almost 88% of its games next year. The kills per set prediction was easier, as the previous four years have seen an extremely linear increase in kills per set (R^2 = .9992). Using this linear fit, I predict the team will get 17.3 kills per set next season.
I hope the graph shows the wonderful work of John Kosty, head coach since 2007. I find it impossible to believe the dramatic improvement wasn’t mostly due to his changes. Congratulations again to the team. Thanks for making it so easy to root for Stanford athletics.
Matlab code to trace out the main quad arcade (please no comments on my coding style…):
arch2 = 1.21;
arch3 = 16/9;
t1 = -1:.01:1;
litarch = .5+sqrt(1-t1.^2)./2;
medarch = real((.5+sqrt(arch2).*(sqrt((arch2-((-sqrt(arch2):.01/sqrt(arch2):sqrt(arch2))).^2)))./2));
bigarch = real((.5+sqrt(arch3).*(sqrt((arch3-((-sqrt(arch3):.01/sqrt(arch3):0)).^2)))./2));
small_col = zeros(1,ceil(length(litarch)/20*6));
half_col = zeros(1,ceil(length(litarch)/20));
big_col = zeros(1,ceil(length(litarch)/2));
x2 = [half_col litarch half_col];
x3 = [x2 x2 x2 x2 x2 x2 x2];
x8 = [x3 x3 big_col x2 big_col x2 big_col big_col half_col medarch half_col half_col small_col bigarch];
x10 = [x8 fliplr(x8)];
t10 = (0:1:length(x10)-1)./length(x10);
midsize = 2.75;
roof = 1.5.*ones(1,length(x10-1));
dim = max(t10/length(t1)*length(t10));
scale = t10/length(t1)*length(t10);
slantx = (dim/2-midsize:(t10(2)-t10(1)):dim/2);
slant = 1.5 + (slantx-dim/2+midsize).*(2.5-1.5)/midsize;
roof1 = scale*(dim/2 – midsize)/dim;
roof2 = dim-((scale*(dim/2 – midsize)/dim));
slant1 = dim/2 – midsize + scale*(5)/dim;