This is why I always played a Nord
(i.redd.it)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (85)
sorted by:
You’ve already failed the retard test but here you go anyway:
Now that you’ve established that graph is “to scale”, swap the jpgs of the bars for jpegs of human silhouettes. You’ll notice that at no point did the graph stop being “to scale” (hopefully atleast, i know you’re retarded so that might be an obstacle for you)
When you swap the bars for the human silhouette, which you explicitly stated wasn’t accurate, it is no longer to scale.
Genuinely don’t know how this is so difficult for you
The silhouettes are “accurately scaled”, you can tell this from the presence of the scale on the side. It doesn’t matter at all, in terms of “to scale”, what you use for your bar: it could be a nondescript grey bar, it could be a poo emoji, it could be a human silhouette, these are mere design choices and have nothing to do with whether or not a graph is “to scale”.
Now that I’ve explained this to you like what 5 times now (?) I’ll leave you to your thoughts (what little that might entail)
They aren’t accurately scaled at all. The graph starts at (roughly) 4’7 which is where every silhouette’s feet starts. You even admitted yourself that it isn’t accurate. Now you’re doubling back.
Let it go dude. You’re getting really frazzled over something that’s easy to just admit you’re not right on.
Champ…you literally just accepted the fact that bar graphs don’t have to start at zero. This reality is made clear by the fact that below 5’0” there is a massive empty space, indicating the y axis has been truncated.
Honestly dude this has been hilarious because i didn’t expect to get so many extra, free laughs at the retards like you when i posted this. I thought the people here would be capable of getting the joke but you sure showed me!