Infographics DumpĀ 

Apr 29, 2017 3:59 PM

iloveimgiamnotabot

Views

515805

Likes

12875

Dislikes

227

Big if true

FP: oh my god I'm a glorious user now o.o

the_more_you_know

opossums don't live that long. 1 year in the wild. maybe 4 years in captivity.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#2 I love the pic for confirmation bias!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

#4 theoretically speaking, tardigrades (water bears) can live forever as well.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ever feel dumber and dumber with each infograph you read?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

The margins on the plastics breakdown infographic are cropped.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, sorry about that couldn't find a better one

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My life goal is to be like that jellyfish

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They spelt Tuatara wrong.... and Henry from NZ became a father at age 111 back in '09...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ostriches don't do that.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I was looking for this, thank you!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#1 When the bottom of the hourglass is full, the DEAD SHALL WALK THE EARTH!

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Tuataras are not lizards, and they can live past 100 years old.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

They also spelt tuatara wrong

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

At least we know who's next on the Tuatara family's hit list.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1.7 billion work in services includes military service?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Stupid freeloader babies!!!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If that job map is saying the University of Michigan employs more people than GM I think it's really wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

that being said new jersey looks wrong

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#1 What happens when you turn that bugger upside down and all the dead people start attacking the live ones ... ?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Zombie Apocaflip

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

plus the Immortal jellyfish usually die during the medusa stage before being able to perform trans differentiation once.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What are these diagrams for ANTS!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Highly informative dump. Thanks OP

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

no problemo ;D

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Would be more informative if it used Metric-units. Like the one with the lightbulb.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There are a few inaccuracies in the small subset that I actually know something about which makes me question the rest of it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#1 "57 million? Get those numbers up. These are rookie numbers."

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I'm trying, okay?! Kinda hard when the whole town gets all upset just 'cause one single person disappears...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bias 8 in #2 is an example of biases 1 and 7. The idea that most people used to think the world was flat is wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

I love this! It's also an example of bias number 8! People are hesitant to accept that the belief in "flat-earther dark ages" is wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well, it was kind of a revelation in ancient greece, and it was slow to acceptance. It's just that acceptance happened long before Columbus.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

i don't fit into any of those on the last one tho.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Sucking dick would fall under services

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well i suppose you're the resident expert. Thanks for the consult

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So, does it bother anyone else that Human Female is out of order (she should come after elephant)

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

YES!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Probably for the sake of keeping the human stats together

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There was a time, when we just looked for something to eat and fucked everyday...

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

like the song 'monkey tree' by mother mother. people want to be carefree.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wasn't even probably that hard. Go kill a megafauna and the whole tribe eats for days.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are only 11 yellow grains in #1. It bugs me.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Plus the whole measurement is pointless if they don't separate the grains that have fallen. Like "oh it's all there, trust me." Well I don't

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Welcome to infographics

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think I need to carry around #2 with me anytime I go anywhere both for myself and for everyone else.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Who uses 100w light bulbs and who leaves them on all year?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Er... me?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Nope.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Me. Almost every light in my house is 100w. I leave the one on my desk on from morning til I go to bed.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

24 hours a day? And you don't use LED or even CFL?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Nope. Well actually from about 5am to between 10pm and midnight. But no standard lightbulb.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Why? Don't like LED? What about them do you not like?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

#10 Ok, but how many of those that are too young too work, do actually work in child labour?

9 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 0

Also that infographic is missing a whackload of people. Where do white-collar workers fit? Some are entrepreneurs I guess, but I doubt if /1

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Industrial or service (make the car.... or car mechanic)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

What? I'm talking about office jobs.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

probably service....

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

I guess customer service could be, but where would, say, a software developer be? A project manager? A marketer? Those don't fit any of /1

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

that's even the majority. And they don't fit into any of the other categories. /2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

too many?

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

Or not enough? ĀÆ\_(惄)_/ĀÆ

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

TIL that I'm only expected to live 1.2 years after retirement!

9 years ago | Likes 649 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted May 1, 2017 1:53 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

I think you need to go back and look at the logical fallacy infographic again!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are we not going to talk about the quality gif right here?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I did the math. If I work eight hours a day every day like I have since I was 18, i will have enough money by age 65 to retire and live

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Comfortably for eleven minutes.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That is only if you are average.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bad news: none of us will be retiring

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

In the average first world country you get to be unemployed for your first and last 15 years of life

9 years ago | Likes 193 Dislikes 0

I retired two years ago, at the ripe old age of 40.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

The Social Security actuaries are counting on it! Drag it out too long and there might be a nasty "accident".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's the idea and why now retirement doesn't work.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

That number wasn't picked at random

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It's the global average, so it's counting places where the life expectancy is like 30.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

ah yes but the longer you live, the higher your expectation goes because you have already not-died as a kid or a teenager

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Infant, child, and workplace deaths and those who die due to stupidity bring this number down a bit.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

This is why I get so mad when people believe pre-industrial people all drop dead at age 40, that's not how averages work ya donkey.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Yeah, if you lived to 25 then you probably lived to at least 65, but getting to 25 was the hard part.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Infant mortality is the biggest reason why it's so low.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's average, including all the idiots accidentally killing themselves in their 20s.

9 years ago | Likes 81 Dislikes 1

Also factor in whether or not you have or are at risk for lethal diseases.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

those make a smaller than you'd think. third world countries with high infant mortality on the other hand...

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

"All those idiots" is less than workplace deaths and deaths 30-60, I'd wager. By a lot.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Also poor countries.

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 0

YOLO

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The infographic is wrong, average human lifespan is 79 years.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It is different if you break it down by gender.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I know, google lied to me, the infographic may be older but more accurate than my statement.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Don't forget this is measuring species not just first world countries.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Google is lying to me :(

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Stop upvoting me, it's bullshit, google lied to me.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The light bulb one doesn't seem accurate at all, it's hard for me to believe that coal is THAT unefficient

9 years ago | Likes 83 Dislikes 9

The answer is to make a more efficient lightbulb...

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

My boyfriend works at a power plant as a fuel burning engineer. He told me the plant burns 2.3 million pounds an hour. So it's believable

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

1 kWh: Coal = 1.04 pounds. Not too shabby... however that 100w lightbulb burns 870kW a year. So the infograph isn't too far off.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Finally, Someone who speaks English.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Coal generated electricity is about 30% efficient at the point of use.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm but hey, let's keep using it and pollute some more!

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 6

Well it works for Fox News.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Doubt is a great starting point, the next step is verifying for yourself

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The lightbulb kWh is off. Graphic says a light bulb uses 876 kWh in a year, but the average home uses 901 kWh in a month.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

You are wrong, it's just unit conversion. They did it right.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

So it's accurate that a single lightbulb uses about 1/12 of an entire home's energy consumption? -_-

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can you explain?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There's .1 kW in 100 W, and 8760 hours in a year, so if you run a 100 W light bulb for a year, that's 876 kW hours

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That math makes sense to me, but it doesn't make sense to me that one lightbulb can account for 1/12 of a house's annual electricity usage

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'd like to know if the "days" in the solar example mean 24hrs of sunlight.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Read that question back to yourself, then try again.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

It's average power generated throughout the year, divided by the number of days in a year. So season would effect it, not day/night.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And if not, the length of sunlight expected

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

inefficient*

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 2

Whole graphic is... not very good. Pounds? Seriously? Ah, but then it uses watts... and also, 1.5 MEGAwatt wind turbine, but then...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

FWIW, I work at a US power plant, and we use both pounds and kW/MW. For some things we use F and others, like H2 temperature, Celsius.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why though :(

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

a kilowatt hydroelectyric one.... that's a TINY dam. Just to make the hours similar.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What confuses me more there is how it switches between Metric-units (Metres, Watt) and Imperial-units (Pounds, Feet). I think the person 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

who created it fucked up the conversions.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

It's an info graph with no stated sources, where did the data for 1 ton of coal creating 2,460 Kwh come from? Take those at face value

9 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 1

The amount of energy per ton of coal is complex, but it's probably less than stated, since it's about 6 Mwh/ton with 31% eff on average.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

since when do we measure natural gas in pounds.... isn't natural gas lighter than air? I thought it is measured in cubic feet/cm3/L ?!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Kilograms (and pounds) are a unit of mass. Let's pretend that you can inhale so much helium that you float. Do you lose all of your mass?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You are right, forgot about mass, was talking strictly about weight... Woops! I expect my gas company to give me my gas by mass lol

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think he was confused because it also gets used as a unit of weight. People say "You weight X kilograms/pounds" in common speech.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

...yes? And why do you think I gave him an exercise in thought?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

My brain is not functioning this morning, but mathematically it's possible for people alive now to one day catch all people that have lived?

9 years ago | Likes 271 Dislikes 8

Think of the lines to get in to Heaven and Hell with that many dying. 50m/year = 95/minute

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They can catch them but they need a really big net

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well the growth of the world population is actually estimated to stop at around 10 billion

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Interesting. Source for that estimation?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If it were a question of math and not of running out of resources, maybe.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Approach, but never reach. Like an asymptote.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No. Think about it a little longer

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

For the ones who believe in reincarnation it does a loop.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

This problem can be solved using differential calculus, specifically related rates. No pen/paper, but I would say probably not.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No need for calc, most likely. But the question is trivial since "people living" is a subset of "all those that have lived," so no.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Not without expanding to another planet/orbital space

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

I read this 4 times before I realized you meant population numbers and not physically capturing...I'm so tired...

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

In theory, but that's why we have wars - human culling.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Disease used to do that as well.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

sure, depends on the birth rates...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The number alive can catch up to those that are dead, but not the number that have ever lived. It'll take a long, long time though.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

As each generation dies though the dead add up. It'd have to have a huge population boom- like 12 kids each starting at a young age for all

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As of now (according to the statistic above) the population is growing by 83 million a year. It's exponential and while our life ...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Expectancy keeps growing too, this number will only grow.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What happens when the lower half of that hourglass gets full?! No death? Will the dead spill over into the living?!!! Zombie apocalypse!

9 years ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 1

I just did the math and turned up an answer of it occurring in 3233. Assuming the total gain of people stays exactly as shown above.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

No you turn the hourglass over and let the dead corpses crush everyone starting with the freshest

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2) Someone do the math on this quick! Assuming the current rates of birth and death hold steady, in what year will it happen?

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Soon, I hope.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Years from now, some future civilisation will unearth this image and decide that it must be that we predicted a zombie apocalypse.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Well people have been predicting it for years, just nobody's been right yet... Yet...

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I am from the future. What you've foreseen has indeed come to pass. It will occur in the year 89 LE. I hope this has been informative.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Nah they'd just get a bigger hourglass don't worry

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Assuming the same birth and death rates, it'd be about 1200 years though

9 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 16

Maybe a little less than 1200, as the total number of people increases, the average number of births will increase as well.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

What? Absolutely not. 7b now, 108b ever. Each year, 57m drop out of the 7b and 140m are added to BOTH. So no, never.

9 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 5

2/3? The key being "all people that EVER LIVED". People alive today are in that. If you mean can the current population exceed the number of

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

3/3 people who existed in the past but are not alive today, given the current birth/death rates with no variables, eventually yes.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

I think that's what I meant. I'd be curious what that crossover pt would be considering the increase in the gap between birth & death rates

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Unless we reach a point of immortality

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Each birth would still add 1 to "current pop" and "pop through the entire history of humanity", so still no.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well, given enough time the two numbers could approach parity, but you'd have to bring back all the dead people for them to ever be equal.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

# of living people can never catch the total # who ever lived because they count in both categories.

9 years ago | Likes 169 Dislikes 8

OK so how long would it take for all the living people to equal all the dead people?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

still a fuck load, our species has existed for thousands of years

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lived is past tense.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

True, but I "was alive" yesterday, doesn't mean I'm now dead.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

well from that graph it looks like they don't count alive people to the "all people that ever lived"

9 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 1

It's a very bad choice to use an hour glass for that infographic.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yes. The first issue I noticed was that it looks as if we're about to reach a point where the bottom half is full. Would that mean people 1/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

can't die anymore because they can't drop down to the dead? Is that how the zombie apocalypse will start? 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That's just the way they have represented it, they are counted in both. They could have changed the bottom to "people who have died"

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

The real problem here is if population ever gets that high we will all be long dead. Maybe super beings in the future resurrect us all!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Usually they are, but not according to that grapgh.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0