about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,849 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The genetically modified cotton in Mississippi somehow released a pheromone that attracted competitive eaters like a siren song of processed meat. It's a real sausage fest down in the cotton fields!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image of a realistic scene blending the tranquility of a Mississippi cotton field with the intensity of a Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Capture a sweeping landscape with tall green cotton plants and bright white flowers in the foreground. In the distance, portray a champion at the competition, surrounded by enthusiastic spectators, devouring a towering stack of hot dogs in record time. Ensure a seamless integration of the peaceful expanse of the cotton field with the high-energy spectacle of the competition. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Photorealism Photorealism a Polaroid photo Realistic Cyberpunk
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a Mississippi cotton field, tall green plants with bright white flowers stretch across the landscape. In the distance, a champion in Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, surrounded by cheering spectators, devours a mountain of hotdogs in record time.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a Mississippi cotton field, tall green plants with bright white flowers stretch across the landscape. In the distance, a champion in Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, surrounded by cheering spectators, devours a mountain of hotdogs in record time. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image of a realistic scene blending the tranquility of a Mississippi cotton field with the intensity of a Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Capture a sweeping landscape with tall green cotton plants and bright white flowers in the foreground. In the distance, portray a champion at the competition, surrounded by enthusiastic spectators, devouring a towering stack of hot dogs in record time. Ensure a seamless integration of the peaceful expanse of the cotton field with the high-energy spectacle of the competition.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in GMO use in cotton in Mississippi caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

The Journal of Agricultural Gastronomy

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
The interplay between agricultural practices and competitive eating habits has long been a subject of curiosity, amusement, and of course, appetite. Amidst this whimsically captivating realm lies the peculiar yet compelling connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the esteemed winners of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. This paper aims to unravel the enigma behind this delectable correlation and shed light on the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence.

The cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton has been a topic of fervent discussion and research in the agricultural domain. Similarly, competitive eating contests, such as Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, have garnered attention and admiration from audiences worldwide for the awe-inspiring feats of consumption they showcase. However, the unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains has evaded thorough exploration until now.

From a casual perspective, one might ponder what connection could possibly exist between the fluffy bolls of GMO cotton swaying in the Mississippi breeze and the savory, cylindrical wonders consumed in Coney Island every Fourth of July. However, the data we have meticulously analyzed may provide a surprising answer — or at least, a tasty clue.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The interplay between agricultural practices and competitive eating habits has long been a subject of curiosity, amusement, and of course, appetite. Amidst this whimsically captivating realm lies the peculiar yet compelling connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the esteemed winners of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. This paper aims to unravel the enigma behind this delectable correlation and shed light on the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence.
The cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton has been a topic of fervent discussion and research in the agricultural domain. Similarly, competitive eating contests, such as Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, have garnered attention and admiration from audiences worldwide for the awe-inspiring feats of consumption they showcase. However, the unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains has evaded thorough exploration until now.
From a casual perspective, one might ponder what connection could possibly exist between the fluffy bolls of GMO cotton swaying in the Mississippi breeze and the savory, cylindrical wonders consumed in Coney Island every Fourth of July. However, the data we have meticulously analyzed may provide a surprising answer — or at least, a tasty clue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The extant literature pertaining to the interaction between GMO cotton cultivation and competitive eating habits predominantly revolves around empirical studies and theoretical frameworks. Smith et al. (2010) expound upon the ramifications of genetically modified crops on agricultural practices, delving into the complexities of pest resistance and yield optimization. Doe and Jones (2015) further contribute to this discourse by examining the socioeconomic implications of GMO adoption in cotton farming. However, the notable correlation between these agricultural endeavors and the consumptive proclivities of competitive eating champions has remained on the periphery of scholarly inquiry.

The implications of GMO cotton cultivation extend beyond the agricultural realm, having a potential impact on a variety of interconnected domains. Hence, the link between cotton cultivation and competitive eating habits, particularly hot dog consumption, presents an intriguing opportunity for interdisciplinary investigation. The relationship between cotton and hot dogs, much like a pair of inseparable condiments on a convoluted hot dog, warrants further exploration to decipher its underpinnings.

Beyond academic studies, the aphorism "You are what you eat" takes on a tongue-in-cheek twist in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, as the author contemplates the complex web of choices that dictate food consumption. In a more whimsical vein, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" by Judi Barrett offers a fantastical lens through which to ponder the origins of bountiful consumables. These literary works, while seemingly unrelated to scholarly discourse, beckon us to consider the multifaceted narratives that intertwine cotton production and hot dog devouring prowess.

Moving beyond traditional literature, the anecdotal evidence presented in a tweet by @HotDogEnthusiast, proclaiming "GMO cotton = maximal hot dog consumption #Truth #HotDogLife," underscores the informal awareness of the potential linkage underpinning our investigation. While the veracity of social media anecdotes remains questionable, they serve as a peculiar barometer of societal perceptions and contribute to the zeitgeist surrounding the fusion of GMO cotton and hot dog festivities.

The convergence of GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion presents an interplay that is as enigmatic as it is toothsome. Thus, our foray into this hitherto unexplored territory strives to blend academic rigor with a dash of whimsy, endeavoring to navigate the labyrinthine connection between agricultural practices and gastronomic exploits.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Wikipedia . You used data from 2000 to 2022

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The interplay between agricultural practices and competitive eating habits has long been a subject of curiosity, amusement, and of course, appetite. Amidst this whimsically captivating realm lies the peculiar yet compelling connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the esteemed winners of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. This paper aims to unravel the enigma behind this delectable correlation and shed light on the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence.
The cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton has been a topic of fervent discussion and research in the agricultural domain. Similarly, competitive eating contests, such as Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, have garnered attention and admiration from audiences worldwide for the awe-inspiring feats of consumption they showcase. However, the unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains has evaded thorough exploration until now.
From a casual perspective, one might ponder what connection could possibly exist between the fluffy bolls of GMO cotton swaying in the Mississippi breeze and the savory, cylindrical wonders consumed in Coney Island every Fourth of July. However, the data we have meticulously analyzed may provide a surprising answer — or at least, a tasty clue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the intriguing connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption patterns of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion, a multi-faceted approach was employed. The data utilized in this study was primarily sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the entrancing annals of Wikipedia for the consumption patterns of the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners.

The chronicle of GMO cotton planting in Mississippi from 2000 to 2022 was meticulously examined, capturing the ebbs and flows of agricultural practices over the years. The geographical distribution, planting densities, and yield variations of GMO cotton were scrutinized to comprehend the potential influence of these factors on hot dog consumption habits, albeit from a whimsical standpoint.

In parallel, the consumption patterns of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion were assiduously monitored. A profound analysis of the hot dog ingestion behaviors of the illustrious winners was conducted, with particular attention to the quantity of hot dogs consumed within the contest setting. The contest's historical records were scrutinized to capture the awe-inspiring feats of gastronomic prowess exhibited by the champions.

Furthermore, a statistical correlation analysis was conducted to unravel the potential relationship between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption patterns of the contest champions. The correlation coefficient and p-value were computed to quantify the strength and significance of the observed association, acknowledging the inherent humor in such a serious statistical analysis.

Additionally, a qualitative inquiry into the underlying mechanisms, if any, behind the identified correlation was undertaken. This involved the contemplation of various idiosyncratic factors that could potentially explain the unexpected interplay between GMO cotton and hot dog consumption, albeit with a touch of academic whimsy.

Finally, given the unconventional nature of the research question, a tinge of humor and levity was interwoven into the research process, fostering an environment where scholarly inquiry met the lighthearted intrigue of uncovering the peculiar relationships that permeate our world.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Wikipedia .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8095134, r-squared of 0.6553119, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The interplay between agricultural practices and competitive eating habits has long been a subject of curiosity, amusement, and of course, appetite. Amidst this whimsically captivating realm lies the peculiar yet compelling connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the esteemed winners of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. This paper aims to unravel the enigma behind this delectable correlation and shed light on the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence.
The cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton has been a topic of fervent discussion and research in the agricultural domain. Similarly, competitive eating contests, such as Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, have garnered attention and admiration from audiences worldwide for the awe-inspiring feats of consumption they showcase. However, the unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains has evaded thorough exploration until now.
From a casual perspective, one might ponder what connection could possibly exist between the fluffy bolls of GMO cotton swaying in the Mississippi breeze and the savory, cylindrical wonders consumed in Coney Island every Fourth of July. However, the data we have meticulously analyzed may provide a surprising answer — or at least, a tasty clue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data revealed a substantial and piquant correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the distinguished champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. From 2000 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8095134, indicating a remarkably strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6553119 further substantiates the robustness of this association. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation cannot be dismissed.

Figure 1 presents a scatterplot illustrating the positively sloped pattern of the correlation between GMO cotton cultivation and the hot dog consumption by the champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. The figure depicts the entwined fate of these seemingly unrelated entities, tantalizing the imagination and prompting further inquiry.

These findings not only unravel the enigmatic relationship between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats but also add a flavorful dimension to the discourse on GMO cultivation and culinary competitions. The implications of this correlation are ripe for further exploration, offering a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between genetic modifications in agriculture and prodigious feats of hot dog indulgence.

The results of this study serve to stimulate the appetite of researchers and enthusiasts alike, beckoning them to savor the possibilities of uncovering the unforeseen interplay between cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The extant literature pertaining to the interaction between GMO cotton cultivation and competitive eating habits predominantly revolves around empirical studies and theoretical frameworks. Smith et al. (2010) expound upon the ramifications of genetically modified crops on agricultural practices, delving into the complexities of pest resistance and yield optimization. Doe and Jones (2015) further contribute to this discourse by examining the socioeconomic implications of GMO adoption in cotton farming. However, the notable correlation between these agricultural endeavors and the consumptive proclivities of competitive eating champions has remained on the periphery of scholarly inquiry.
The implications of GMO cotton cultivation extend beyond the agricultural realm, having a potential impact on a variety of interconnected domains. Hence, the link between cotton cultivation and competitive eating habits, particularly hot dog consumption, presents an intriguing opportunity for interdisciplinary investigation. The relationship between cotton and hot dogs, much like a pair of inseparable condiments on a convoluted hot dog, warrants further exploration to decipher its underpinnings.
Beyond academic studies, the aphorism "You are what you eat" takes on a tongue-in-cheek twist in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, as the author contemplates the complex web of choices that dictate food consumption. In a more whimsical vein, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" by Judi Barrett offers a fantastical lens through which to ponder the origins of bountiful consumables. These literary works, while seemingly unrelated to scholarly discourse, beckon us to consider the multifaceted narratives that intertwine cotton production and hot dog devouring prowess.
Moving beyond traditional literature, the anecdotal evidence presented in a tweet by @HotDogEnthusiast, proclaiming "GMO cotton = maximal hot dog consumption #Truth #HotDogLife," underscores the informal awareness of the potential linkage underpinning our investigation. While the veracity of social media anecdotes remains questionable, they serve as a peculiar barometer of societal perceptions and contribute to the zeitgeist surrounding the fusion of GMO cotton and hot dog festivities.
The convergence of GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion presents an interplay that is as enigmatic as it is toothsome. Thus, our foray into this hitherto unexplored territory strives to blend academic rigor with a dash of whimsy, endeavoring to navigate the labyrinthine connection between agricultural practices and gastronomic exploits.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a substantial and piquant correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the distinguished champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. From 2000 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8095134, indicating a remarkably strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6553119 further substantiates the robustness of this association. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation cannot be dismissed.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot illustrating the positively sloped pattern of the correlation between GMO cotton cultivation and the hot dog consumption by the champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. The figure depicts the entwined fate of these seemingly unrelated entities, tantalizing the imagination and prompting further inquiry.
These findings not only unravel the enigmatic relationship between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats but also add a flavorful dimension to the discourse on GMO cultivation and culinary competitions. The implications of this correlation are ripe for further exploration, offering a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between genetic modifications in agriculture and prodigious feats of hot dog indulgence.
The results of this study serve to stimulate the appetite of researchers and enthusiasts alike, beckoning them to savor the possibilities of uncovering the unforeseen interplay between cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of the present study provide compelling evidence of a strong and positively sloped correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. These findings are consistent with prior research, such as the tweet by @HotDogEnthusiast, which humorously enunciates the relationship between GMO cotton and maximal hot dog consumption. While the veracity of social media anecdotes may raise skepticism, its alignment with our empirical findings cannot be disregarded, highlighting the informal awareness of the potential linkage between these seemingly disparate entities.

This correlation substantiates the speculation put forth by Smith et al. (2010) regarding the ramifications of genetically modified crops on agricultural practices, shedding light on the broader implications of GMO adoption in cotton farming. Additionally, the connection between cotton cultivation and competitive eating habits resonates with the aphorism "You are what you eat," as delineated by Pollan (2006), albeit in a rather unconventional context. The whimsical aphorism seems to take on a literal interpretation in the case of the cotton cultivation-hot dog consumption nexus, prompting a whimsical contemplation of the adage's veracity when applied to competitive eating champions.

Our findings not only affirm the robustness of the correlation between GMO cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption but also align with the interdisciplinary approach advocated by our literature review. By interweaving scholarly rigor with a dash of whimsy, this research not only unravels the enigmatic relationship between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats but also adds a flavorful dimension to the discourse on GMO cultivation and culinary competitions.

The positively sloped pattern illustrated in Figure 1 alludes to the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog consumption, prompting an appetizing enticement for further inquiry. The implications of this correlation are ripe for exploration, offering a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between genetic modifications in agriculture and prodigious feats of hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a veritable smorgasbord of future investigations, inviting researchers and enthusiasts alike to savor the possibilities of uncovering the unforeseen interplay between cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The interplay between agricultural practices and competitive eating habits has long been a subject of curiosity, amusement, and of course, appetite. Amidst this whimsically captivating realm lies the peculiar yet compelling connection between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the esteemed winners of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. This paper aims to unravel the enigma behind this delectable correlation and shed light on the intertwined fate of GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence.
The cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton has been a topic of fervent discussion and research in the agricultural domain. Similarly, competitive eating contests, such as Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest, have garnered attention and admiration from audiences worldwide for the awe-inspiring feats of consumption they showcase. However, the unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains has evaded thorough exploration until now.
From a casual perspective, one might ponder what connection could possibly exist between the fluffy bolls of GMO cotton swaying in the Mississippi breeze and the savory, cylindrical wonders consumed in Coney Island every Fourth of July. However, the data we have meticulously analyzed may provide a surprising answer — or at least, a tasty clue.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a substantial and piquant correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton in Mississippi and the consumption of hot dogs by the distinguished champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. From 2000 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8095134, indicating a remarkably strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6553119 further substantiates the robustness of this association. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation cannot be dismissed.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot illustrating the positively sloped pattern of the correlation between GMO cotton cultivation and the hot dog consumption by the champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. The figure depicts the entwined fate of these seemingly unrelated entities, tantalizing the imagination and prompting further inquiry.
These findings not only unravel the enigmatic relationship between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats but also add a flavorful dimension to the discourse on GMO cultivation and culinary competitions. The implications of this correlation are ripe for further exploration, offering a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between genetic modifications in agriculture and prodigious feats of hot dog indulgence.
The results of this study serve to stimulate the appetite of researchers and enthusiasts alike, beckoning them to savor the possibilities of uncovering the unforeseen interplay between cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has brought to light the fascinating correlation between GMO cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the prodigious hot dog consumption by the champions of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and low p-value suggest a tangy intertwining of these seemingly disparate realms, leaving a lingering taste of curiosity in the academic palate.

It is tempting to contemplate the causal mechanisms underlying this savory correlation - perhaps the aromatic allure of hot dog buns carries across the cotton fields, or the competitive spirit of champions burgeons alongside the flourishing genetically modified cotton. However, delving into these flavorful speculations is beyond the scope of our current study.

As we reflect on the implications of our findings, it becomes clear that the bond between GMO cotton cultivation and hot dog consumption is not just a statistical quirk but an intriguing confluence of agricultural and culinary domains. This correlation serves as a reminder of the rich tapestry of connections that permeate our world, from the mundane to the delectable.

While our research provides a tantalizing taste of the potential correlations, further studies are needed to peel back the layers of this delectable mystery. However, in the spirit of culinary satisfaction, we assert that no more research on this delectably whimsical interplay is needed. Bon appétit!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Gastronomy


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Agricultural Experiments and Culinary Conundrums


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Unbundling the Buns: Unraveling the Interplay between GMO Cotton Cultivation in Mississippi and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion's Consumption with an abstract of This research delves into the scarcely explored yet whimsically captivating realm of the interplay between genetically modified organism (GMO) cotton cultivation in Mississippi and the hot dog consumption habits of the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Champion. Through scrupulous analysis of USDA data on cotton planting, along with meticulous tracking of Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest winners' hot dog consumption, a noteworthy correlation emerged. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8095134 and a compelling p-value of less than 0.01 from the year 2000 to 2022. The results not only raise eyebrows but also elicit an appetite for further investigation to unveil the enigmatic relationship between GMO cotton and hot dog indulgence. This research sets the stage for a delectable pursuit of understanding the intricate connections that may exist between agricultural practices and competitive eating feats.

ChatGPT:

GMO cotton cultivation, Mississippi, hot dog consumption, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, USDA data, cotton planting, correlation coefficient, p-value, competitive eating feats

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

GMO use in cotton in Mississippi
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Mississippi genetically modified with both Bt and HT
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Mississippi

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.8095134 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.6553119 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 65.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Mississippi) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.9E-6. 0.0000028903643462553723000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.81 in 0.00029% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 345,977 random variables You don't actually need 345 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.6, 0.92 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in cotton in Mississippi (GMO cotton %)7886889297969897989389989899999999999999999998
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)255050.544.553.334953.7566596854626869616270727471757663




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([78,86,88,92,97,96,98,97,98,93,89,98,98,99,99,99,99,99,99,99,99,99,98,])
array_2 = np.array([25,50,50.5,44.5,53.33,49,53.75,66,59,68,54,62,68,69,61,62,70,72,74,71,75,76,63,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Mississippi"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 1849 · Black Variable ID: 807 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0