Pretty sure it's a bobcat though they are easy to confuse.

I reference this http://travel4wildlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lyx-vs-bobcat2.jpg

Specifically I'm thinking: short tufts, visible spots, and rear legs & hips similar length to front and most significantly longer tail. (Lynx barely has enough tail to swish unlike this chap)

To my eye you can tick off all the main bobcat signifiers here anyway.

Edit: Lynx Rufus is a Bobcat! (should have read further before commenting DOH!)

Yeah, the translation is a bit awkward. I think the "ring" at the end is the casing for one of the individual cluster bombs, providing a fortress wall of sorts around a tuft of grass.

>> ^VoodooV:

yeah what was up with the tuft of feathers on his head?


I think it is not fully grown yet?

*wings

yeah what was up with the tuft of feathers on his head?

Edward Tufte would agree as well.

>> ^blankfist:

And I like how his chart stops at 1 million. Why doesn't he show what they'd do to people who make more than 1 million? What about people who make ten million? Or 100 million? Because this is just theater.


Presumably that's because that demographic is a tiny fraction of the US population and not exactly the target group here.

That said,

>> ^handmethekeysyou:


The fact that the White House is not read up on Tufte, someone who has written numerous books on statistics in politics and who remains the foremost thinker on information design, is disheartening at best.
Sorry to geek out on this, but I expect better. You're trying to take steps forward by speaking in plain English to the general public, & I salute you for it. But you need to come correct.


I find it difficult to believe any player who makes it to the White House is inept enough to do this by accident. I suspect the diameter (if I was feeling really cynical, I'd say the radius) of the circles is what the ruler was used to measure out, quite intentionally.

I love this idea, and I really hope they continue with it as a series. However, I take one very strong issue with this video; specifically their absolute failure in communication design. The use of circles is borderline offensive to anyone even loosely schooled in the subject.

"We got a ruler and measured out the size of the tax cut, is how big the circle is [sic]". Cool. Corresponding to what? How big the tax cut is by percentage? Dollar amount? What?

The ruler was used for what? Diameter? Area? How are you representing the % or $ amount?

People trained in advertising & marketing seem to believe that bar charts are boring to the populace. Well, if you're representing a linear data set, your representation should be linear. That's not boring, that's good, accurate representation.

To quote Tufte [from The Visual Display of Quantitative Information]: "Another way to confuse data variation with design variation is to use area to show one-dimensional data."
And later: "The number of information-carrying (variable) dimensions depicted should not exceed the number of dimensions in the data."

The fact that the White House is not read up on Tufte, someone who has written numerous books on statistics in politics and who remains the foremost thinker on information design, is disheartening at best.

Sorry to geek out on this, but I expect better. You're trying to take steps forward by speaking in plain English to the general public, & I salute you for it. But you need to come correct.

I still can't tell if that tilde is a tuft of hair or his head smoldering. I guess it's whatever I want it to be

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry, this comment was a lot funnier than these up-tights would ever admit. Don't make fun of the Jews! The HOLOCAUST! (but let's make fun of Christians and Muslims from dawn 'til dusk). Jews don't deserve special treatment. Nobody does. (except burn victims ~(:·o) <-Burn vicitm )That's a nice burn victim emoticon.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK, I actually read that whole thing, and you make some good points- but it's a big assumption to state that humans are "losing their hair". First off, let's call hair what it is- fur. The human species has varying amounts of fur tufts all over the body. I would argue that evolution is not leading us to a species completely lacking in fur- but has decided that the tufts that we have are the advantageous amounts.

Here's why I think we have those tufts:

>> ^dag:

I've never understood the shaved under-arm fetish. It's just more cultural body modification akin to lip plates, ear rings or teeth blackening. It's totally wrong and crazy that people see the natural state of the human body as "gross".


People dislike body hair, in part, for the same reason that people have so little body hair compared to other animals--evolution has equipped us with a predisposition to be against it. Natural selection would disfavor body hair because it can harbor parasites. Sexual selection would disfavor body hair because physical fitness of a mate is inversely correlated with age which in turn is correlated with body hair; the less body hair you have, the more fit you are likely to be. Remember, for most of evolution, an age of 30 was over the hill. Sexual selection would also disfavor body hair because it could conceal wounds or disease. Also, the sex hormone testosterone promotes body hair growth. The more body hair you have, the more likely you are to be male. Evolution directing people's sexual tastes to generally favor the characteristics of the opposite sex would then cause men to prefer mates with less body hair than found on other men.

There are conscious reasons to disfavor body hair. For example, most body odor comes from bacteria that feed on sweat, not directly from the sweat itself. A tuft of armpit hair is essentially a city of multi-story apartment buildings for bacteria. With shaved armpits, you need less deodorant. With showering daily, I find that I rarely need to use deodorant.

For the record, I'm male, and I prefer as little body hair as possible on females and on myself.

If there's anything I've learned, it's that Fox News has yet another questionable journalist who's either a)one of the dumbest people on the planet, b)a complete prostitute that will do/say anything, or c)who care because I just pulled the last tuft of my hair out

Thanks for the reference to "Quining Qualia" gwiz.

I find Qualia to be a largely unexamined source of philosophical dilemmas, along the same lines as the criticism that philosophical dialogue often gets too caught up in semantics.

"Mister!" he said with a sawdusty sneeze,
"I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.
I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.
And I'm asking you, sir, at the top of my lungs" -
he was very upset as he shouted and puffed-
"What's that THING you've made out of my Truffula tuft?"

- The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

Upvote for that fantastic tuft of hair floating around on top of knopfler's head.

The horse is almost certainly the worst choice for such a debunking since it's the most thoroughly documented lineage in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm