Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the name Dexter gained popularity, more and more parents were inspired by the TV show to name their children after a fictional serial killer. This led to an influx of young Dexters in Great Falls, Montana, who all shared a love for conducting "experiments" and mayhem. One fateful science fair, the Dexters banded together to build their own backyard meth lab, unaware of the environmental consequences. The resulting explosion not only shocked the neighborhood, but also somehow managed to kickstart a bizarre chain reaction that significantly improved the air quality in Great Falls, Montana. It's almost as if the universe decided to reward the city for putting up with all the chaos - talk about a serial killer twist of fate for air pollution!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image that embodies the juxtaposition of vintage nostalgia and futuristic despair in a cityscape. Show a fading, pastel-colored skyline of Great Falls, Montana, with hazy pollution obscuring the once clear blue skies. Incorporate a few scattered, retro-futuristic Dexter-powered clean air machines in the foreground, exuding a sense of technological obsolescence amidst environmental degradation. The scene should evoke a melancholic ambiance and highlight the contrast between the declining popularity of the name Dexter and the consequences of air pollution through vaporwave aesthetics. 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: Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. 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: Scalar art Celtic art Brutalism Vaporwave Symbolism
ChatGPT: Vaporwave
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana, in the following situation: Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana increased as the popularity of the first name Dexter declined because the sudden lack of Dexters resulted in a decrease in Dexter-powered clean air machines, allowing pollutants to accumulate.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Great Falls, Montana, across the town, the number of Dexter-powered clean air machines dwindled as the popularity of the first name Dexter declined. Meanwhile, the air pollution in the area increased noticeably. The once clear blue skies became obscured by a hazy layer of pollutants due to the sudden lack of Dexters to operate the clean air machines.
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: [ Vaporwave ] and depicting this scene: In Great Falls, Montana, across the town, the number of Dexter-powered clean air machines dwindled as the popularity of the first name Dexter declined. Meanwhile, the air pollution in the area increased noticeably. The once clear blue skies became obscured by a hazy layer of pollutants due to the sudden lack of Dexters to operate the clean air machines. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image that embodies the juxtaposition of vintage nostalgia and futuristic despair in a cityscape. Show a fading, pastel-colored skyline of Great Falls, Montana, with hazy pollution obscuring the once clear blue skies. Incorporate a few scattered, retro-futuristic Dexter-powered clean air machines in the foreground, exuding a sense of technological obsolescence amidst environmental degradation. The scene should evoke a melancholic ambiance and highlight the contrast between the declining popularity of the name Dexter and the consequences of air pollution through vaporwave aesthetics.
*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.
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 increases in Popularity of the first name Dexter positively influenced Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it feel plausible.
AI academic paper
Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana Journal of Quirky Connections Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.
Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and p < 0.01 for 1980 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]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The curious penchant for naming trends has long piqued the interest of scholars, both those with a penchant for statistical analysis and those with a penchant for puns. The connection between the popularity of certain names and various socio-environmental factors has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with studies exploring the impact of names on academic achievement, job prospects, and even romantic success. However, the association between the prevalence of a specific name and air pollution levels remains an uncharted territory, as elusive as a whisper in the wind.
In this study, we cast our gaze upon the enigmatic city of Great Falls, Montana, where the crisp mountain air mingles with the subtle scent of industry. Following the footsteps of previous research linking names to environmental variables, we hypothesized the existence of a correlation between the ubiquity of the name "Dexter" and the quality of the atmospheric composition in this picturesque locale.
The city of Great Falls, with its enchanting vistas and industrious spirit, serves as the pristine canvas upon which we shall paint our statistical brushstrokes. Our study seeks not only to unravel the potential relationship between the moniker "Dexter" and air pollution levels, but also to sow the seeds of wonder regarding the whimsical interplay between personal nomenclature and ecological phenomena. With a twinkle in our eyes and a regression model in hand, we embark upon this unconventional odyssey, armed with curiosity and a dash of statistical rigor.
Stayed tuned for the following sections, where we shall discuss the methodologies, results, and implications of this quirky exploration into the uncharted realms of nomenclatural ecology.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The curious penchant for naming trends has long piqued the interest of scholars, both those with a penchant for statistical analysis and those with a penchant for puns. The connection between the popularity of certain names and various socio-environmental factors has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with studies exploring the impact of names on academic achievement, job prospects, and even romantic success. However, the association between the prevalence of a specific name and air pollution levels remains an uncharted territory, as elusive as a whisper in the wind.
In this study, we cast our gaze upon the enigmatic city of Great Falls, Montana, where the crisp mountain air mingles with the subtle scent of industry. Following the footsteps of previous research linking names to environmental variables, we hypothesized the existence of a correlation between the ubiquity of the name "Dexter" and the quality of the atmospheric composition in this picturesque locale.
The city of Great Falls, with its enchanting vistas and industrious spirit, serves as the pristine canvas upon which we shall paint our statistical brushstrokes. Our study seeks not only to unravel the potential relationship between the moniker "Dexter" and air pollution levels, but also to sow the seeds of wonder regarding the whimsical interplay between personal nomenclature and ecological phenomena. With a twinkle in our eyes and a regression model in hand, we embark upon this unconventional odyssey, armed with curiosity and a dash of statistical rigor.
Stayed tuned for the following sections, where we shall discuss the methodologies, results, and implications of this quirky exploration into the uncharted realms of nomenclatural ecology.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the connection between personal names and environmental factors has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive study on the influence of names on various socio-environmental variables, including academic achievement, professional success, and even romantic relationships. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2019) delved into the impact of specific names on societal perceptions and behaviors. While these studies provide valuable insights into the broader implications of nomenclature, the specific correlation between the prevalence of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana has yet to be explored.
Turning to related literature, "The Name Game: The Influence of Personal Names on Environmental Destiny" by White and Black (2015) offers a comprehensive review of the potential linkages between names and ecological phenomena. This seminal work lays the groundwork for understanding the subtle yet profound ways in which nomenclature may intersect with environmental variables. In a similar vein, "The Power of a Name: A Sociological Analysis of Personal Monikers and their Impact on the Natural World" by Green (2017) examines the intricate relationship between names and environmental attitudes, providing a framework for investigating the interplay between personal nomenclature and atmospheric conditions.
Shifting focus to fictional works that may offer tangential insights, "The Airbender's Apprentice" by Wind (2009) presents a fantastical world in which individuals possess the ability to manipulate air quality through the sheer power of their chosen names. While purely fictional, this narrative sparks the imagination and prompts contemplation of the potential influence of personal monikers on environmental dynamics. Furthermore, "Cloud Atlas" by Mitchell (2004) weaves a tapestry of interconnected stories, inviting readers to ponder the boundless interconnectedness of human existence and natural forces. The whimsical exploration of the name "Dexter" in our study is akin to the literary exploration of names and their effects on atmospheric conditions in these imaginative works.
Additionally, drawing inspiration from the world of games, "Pandemic: Legacy" engenders contemplation of the intricate web of factors that influence environmental conditions in various locales. While not directly related to the subject at hand, the game's focus on the interplay of variables and their impact on public health offers a playful parallel to our serious inquiry into the peculiar relationship between the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana.
It seems the juxtaposition of serious research with these offbeat references and witticisms may add a touch of humor and enliven the generally dry academic subject matter.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 1980 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]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The curious penchant for naming trends has long piqued the interest of scholars, both those with a penchant for statistical analysis and those with a penchant for puns. The connection between the popularity of certain names and various socio-environmental factors has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with studies exploring the impact of names on academic achievement, job prospects, and even romantic success. However, the association between the prevalence of a specific name and air pollution levels remains an uncharted territory, as elusive as a whisper in the wind.
In this study, we cast our gaze upon the enigmatic city of Great Falls, Montana, where the crisp mountain air mingles with the subtle scent of industry. Following the footsteps of previous research linking names to environmental variables, we hypothesized the existence of a correlation between the ubiquity of the name "Dexter" and the quality of the atmospheric composition in this picturesque locale.
The city of Great Falls, with its enchanting vistas and industrious spirit, serves as the pristine canvas upon which we shall paint our statistical brushstrokes. Our study seeks not only to unravel the potential relationship between the moniker "Dexter" and air pollution levels, but also to sow the seeds of wonder regarding the whimsical interplay between personal nomenclature and ecological phenomena. With a twinkle in our eyes and a regression model in hand, we embark upon this unconventional odyssey, armed with curiosity and a dash of statistical rigor.
Stayed tuned for the following sections, where we shall discuss the methodologies, results, and implications of this quirky exploration into the uncharted realms of nomenclatural ecology.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To commence our whimsical odyssey, we gathered data on the popularity of the first name Dexter from the reputable repository of nomenclature, the US Social Security Administration. In our quest to discern the intricate relationship between monikers and the atmosphere, we diligently scoured the annals of birth certificates and compiled a comprehensive dataset spanning the years 1980 to 2022.
By harnessing the power of online databases and statistical software, we meticulously extracted the frequencies of occurrences of the name "Dexter" and its association with temporal variations. Our method yielded a chronicle of nomenclatural ebbs and flows, akin to the undulating currents of a gentle breeze.
Turning our attention to the ethereal realm of air pollution in the charming locality of Great Falls, Montana, we looked to the venerable Environmental Protection Agency as our guiding beacon. We captured multifaceted measurements of ambient air quality, including but not limited to the levels of particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
Our endeavor to unravel the potential correlation between the name "Dexter" and the elemental composition of the air in Great Falls involved the sophisticated application of correlation analysis and regression models. Through the fusion of statistical methodologies and a touch of ingenuity, we established the robustness of our findings.
In a delightful twist of fate, our research journey culminated in the revelation of a correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a striking p-value of less than 0.01. These quantitative expositions serve as testaments to the enchanting interplay between personal appellations and atmospheric conditions, weaving a narrative as captivating as a zephyr's gentle caress.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency .
For the time period 1980 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.6293701, r-squared of 0.3961068, 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]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The curious penchant for naming trends has long piqued the interest of scholars, both those with a penchant for statistical analysis and those with a penchant for puns. The connection between the popularity of certain names and various socio-environmental factors has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with studies exploring the impact of names on academic achievement, job prospects, and even romantic success. However, the association between the prevalence of a specific name and air pollution levels remains an uncharted territory, as elusive as a whisper in the wind.
In this study, we cast our gaze upon the enigmatic city of Great Falls, Montana, where the crisp mountain air mingles with the subtle scent of industry. Following the footsteps of previous research linking names to environmental variables, we hypothesized the existence of a correlation between the ubiquity of the name "Dexter" and the quality of the atmospheric composition in this picturesque locale.
The city of Great Falls, with its enchanting vistas and industrious spirit, serves as the pristine canvas upon which we shall paint our statistical brushstrokes. Our study seeks not only to unravel the potential relationship between the moniker "Dexter" and air pollution levels, but also to sow the seeds of wonder regarding the whimsical interplay between personal nomenclature and ecological phenomena. With a twinkle in our eyes and a regression model in hand, we embark upon this unconventional odyssey, armed with curiosity and a dash of statistical rigor.
Stayed tuned for the following sections, where we shall discuss the methodologies, results, and implications of this quirky exploration into the uncharted realms of nomenclatural ecology.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the investigation revealed a compelling correlation between the frequency of the first name "Dexter" and the levels of air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Over the time period of 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 was observed, indicating a moderately strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) further substantiated this association, yielding a value of 0.3961068, signifying that approximately 40% of the variation in air pollution levels could be explained by the prevalence of the name "Dexter." The p-value, less than 0.01, provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship, reinforcing the statistical significance of the findings.
As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot presents a vivid visualization of the pronounced correlation between the popularity of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana, further emphasizing the coherence of the statistical analysis with the empirical data.
These results not only shed light on the substantive connection between nomenclature and atmospheric quality but also beckon the inquisitive mind to ponder the intricate interplay between personal appellations and environmental phenomena. The implications of these findings resonate not only in the realms of statistical analysis but also in the whimsical realms of nomenclatural ecology, where the winds of curiosity and the breath of statistical rigor coalesce to unravel the enigmatic threads of this unconventional relationship.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the connection between personal names and environmental factors has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive study on the influence of names on various socio-environmental variables, including academic achievement, professional success, and even romantic relationships. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2019) delved into the impact of specific names on societal perceptions and behaviors. While these studies provide valuable insights into the broader implications of nomenclature, the specific correlation between the prevalence of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana has yet to be explored.
Turning to related literature, "The Name Game: The Influence of Personal Names on Environmental Destiny" by White and Black (2015) offers a comprehensive review of the potential linkages between names and ecological phenomena. This seminal work lays the groundwork for understanding the subtle yet profound ways in which nomenclature may intersect with environmental variables. In a similar vein, "The Power of a Name: A Sociological Analysis of Personal Monikers and their Impact on the Natural World" by Green (2017) examines the intricate relationship between names and environmental attitudes, providing a framework for investigating the interplay between personal nomenclature and atmospheric conditions.
Shifting focus to fictional works that may offer tangential insights, "The Airbender's Apprentice" by Wind (2009) presents a fantastical world in which individuals possess the ability to manipulate air quality through the sheer power of their chosen names. While purely fictional, this narrative sparks the imagination and prompts contemplation of the potential influence of personal monikers on environmental dynamics. Furthermore, "Cloud Atlas" by Mitchell (2004) weaves a tapestry of interconnected stories, inviting readers to ponder the boundless interconnectedness of human existence and natural forces. The whimsical exploration of the name "Dexter" in our study is akin to the literary exploration of names and their effects on atmospheric conditions in these imaginative works.
Additionally, drawing inspiration from the world of games, "Pandemic: Legacy" engenders contemplation of the intricate web of factors that influence environmental conditions in various locales. While not directly related to the subject at hand, the game's focus on the interplay of variables and their impact on public health offers a playful parallel to our serious inquiry into the peculiar relationship between the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana.
It seems the juxtaposition of serious research with these offbeat references and witticisms may add a touch of humor and enliven the generally dry academic subject matter.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the investigation revealed a compelling correlation between the frequency of the first name "Dexter" and the levels of air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Over the time period of 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 was observed, indicating a moderately strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) further substantiated this association, yielding a value of 0.3961068, signifying that approximately 40% of the variation in air pollution levels could be explained by the prevalence of the name "Dexter." The p-value, less than 0.01, provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship, reinforcing the statistical significance of the findings.
As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot presents a vivid visualization of the pronounced correlation between the popularity of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana, further emphasizing the coherence of the statistical analysis with the empirical data.
These results not only shed light on the substantive connection between nomenclature and atmospheric quality but also beckon the inquisitive mind to ponder the intricate interplay between personal appellations and environmental phenomena. The implications of these findings resonate not only in the realms of statistical analysis but also in the whimsical realms of nomenclatural ecology, where the winds of curiosity and the breath of statistical rigor coalesce to unravel the enigmatic threads of this unconventional relationship.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of the current study provide compelling evidence of a significant relationship between the popularity of the first name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana. These findings echo and extend prior research on the influence of personal names on environmental variables, thus adding a whimsical yet thought-provoking dimension to the existing literature.
The robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 observed in this study aligns with previous investigations by Smith et al. (2018) and Doe and Jones (2019), who highlighted the potential impact of nomenclature on various socio-environmental factors. While their studies focused on broader implications of personal names, our findings specifically underscore the intriguing connection between a particular name and atmospheric conditions, thereby expanding the scope of prior research in this domain.
The pronounced correlation between the prevalence of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels is reminiscent of the fantastical narrative presented by Wind (2009), where individuals possess the remarkable ability to manipulate air quality through their chosen names. While Wind's work is purely fictional, the empirical evidence from our study tantalizingly evokes the fanciful notion of nomenclatural influence on environmental dynamics, inviting contemplation of the intertwining of reality with whimsy.
The statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 further buttresses the validity of the observed relationship, challenging the null hypothesis of no association and affirming the substantial impact of the name "Dexter" on air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana. Such empirical support resonates with the satirical musings of Green (2017), who articulated the potential sway of personal monikers on environmental attitudes, adding a touch of levity to our earnest inquiry into this peculiar relationship.
The scatterplot visualization provides a vivid portrayal of the coherence between the frequency of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels, evoking the playful parallel with "Pandemic: Legacy" where the intricate web of variables influences environmental conditions in various locales. Although this unforeseen connection between nomenclature and atmospheric quality may appear whimsical at first glance, the statistical rigor of our analysis and its alignment with prior literature underscore the steadfastness of our findings.
The implications of this research extend beyond the realms of statistical analysis and into the whimsical arena of nomenclatural ecology, unveiling a hitherto unexplored terrain where the intermingling of empirical rigor and fancy engenders profound revelations. Indeed, the winds of curiosity and the breath of statistical rigor have combined to cast light upon the enigmatic relationship between the name "Dexter" and air pollution in Great Falls, Montana, prompting further inquiry and sparking the imagination of scholars and laypersons alike.
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 Popularity of the first name Dexter and Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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]]
"Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The curious penchant for naming trends has long piqued the interest of scholars, both those with a penchant for statistical analysis and those with a penchant for puns. The connection between the popularity of certain names and various socio-environmental factors has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with studies exploring the impact of names on academic achievement, job prospects, and even romantic success. However, the association between the prevalence of a specific name and air pollution levels remains an uncharted territory, as elusive as a whisper in the wind.
In this study, we cast our gaze upon the enigmatic city of Great Falls, Montana, where the crisp mountain air mingles with the subtle scent of industry. Following the footsteps of previous research linking names to environmental variables, we hypothesized the existence of a correlation between the ubiquity of the name "Dexter" and the quality of the atmospheric composition in this picturesque locale.
The city of Great Falls, with its enchanting vistas and industrious spirit, serves as the pristine canvas upon which we shall paint our statistical brushstrokes. Our study seeks not only to unravel the potential relationship between the moniker "Dexter" and air pollution levels, but also to sow the seeds of wonder regarding the whimsical interplay between personal nomenclature and ecological phenomena. With a twinkle in our eyes and a regression model in hand, we embark upon this unconventional odyssey, armed with curiosity and a dash of statistical rigor.
Stayed tuned for the following sections, where we shall discuss the methodologies, results, and implications of this quirky exploration into the uncharted realms of nomenclatural ecology.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the investigation revealed a compelling correlation between the frequency of the first name "Dexter" and the levels of air pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Over the time period of 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 was observed, indicating a moderately strong relationship between the two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) further substantiated this association, yielding a value of 0.3961068, signifying that approximately 40% of the variation in air pollution levels could be explained by the prevalence of the name "Dexter." The p-value, less than 0.01, provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship, reinforcing the statistical significance of the findings.
As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot presents a vivid visualization of the pronounced correlation between the popularity of the name "Dexter" and air pollution levels in Great Falls, Montana, further emphasizing the coherence of the statistical analysis with the empirical data.
These results not only shed light on the substantive connection between nomenclature and atmospheric quality but also beckon the inquisitive mind to ponder the intricate interplay between personal appellations and environmental phenomena. The implications of these findings resonate not only in the realms of statistical analysis but also in the whimsical realms of nomenclatural ecology, where the winds of curiosity and the breath of statistical rigor coalesce to unravel the enigmatic threads of this unconventional relationship.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our research has unveiled a curious connection between the frequency of the name "Dexter" and the levels of air pollution in the picturesque city of Great Falls, Montana. The substantial correlation coefficient and the persuasive p-value highlight the robustness of this unexpected association, offering a glimpse into the whimsical interplay between nomenclature and atmospheric conditions. As we scrutinize these findings, it is worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, the allure of a name like "Dexter" may indeed carry an atmospheric weight. One cannot help but wonder whether the exhalations of industrious citizens resonate with the resonance of this captivating name, shaping the very air they breathe.
The theoretical and practical implications of these findings ripple through the tranquil air of Great Falls, evoking contemplation on the unseen forces that shape our surroundings. As we gaze out from our statistical laboratory, we invite further exploration into the nuances of nomenclatural ecology and its interplay with environmental phenomena. It is a field ripe with potential and perhaps a touch of whimsy, as we ponder the breath of statistical rigor that fills the air with possibility.
In summary, the connection between the popularity of the name "Dexter" and air pollution in Great Falls, Montana is a matter both intriguing and droll, a blend of statistical gravity and playful curiosity. As we draw the curtain on this research endeavor, we can confidently assert that no further inquiries are needed in this peculiar yet compelling domain of inquiry. The name "Dexter" may not only evoke images of a certain fictional laboratory, but it also appears to exert a subtle influence on the very air we breathe in the real world.
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 Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Quirky Connections
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 Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Nameology and Environmental Studies
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 Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana with an abstract of This study delves into the intriguing connection between the prevalence of the first name Dexter and the levels of air pollution in the charming city of Great Falls, Montana. Utilizing comprehensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency spanning the years 1980 to 2022, a robust correlation coefficient of 0.6293701 and a noteworthy p-value of less than 0.01 were determined. The findings warrant careful consideration and spark curiosity regarding the influence of nomenclature on environmental factors. This research offers an in-depth analysis of this unconventional relationship and encourages further inquiry into the whimsical interplay between personal monikers and atmospheric conditions.
ChatGPT:
Dexter, name popularity, air pollution, Great Falls, Montana, correlation coefficient, US Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, whimsical relationship, nomenclature, atmospheric conditions
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Popularity of the first name DexterDetailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Dexter
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Dexter
Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with moderate or worse air quality in Great Falls, MT
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana
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 = 0.3961068 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 39.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Dexter) over the 43 years from 1980 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.2E-6. 0.0000061574752286570400000000
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 0.63 in 0.00062% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 162,404 random variables You don't actually need 162 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 42 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 42 because we have two variables measured over a period of 43 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.
[ 0.41, 0.78 ] 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.
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
Popularity of the first name Dexter (Babies born) | 270 | 256 | 226 | 220 | 336 | 417 | 594 | 665 | 648 | 688 | 612 | 553 | 451 | 447 | 356 | 336 | 307 | 292 | 296 | 211 | 223 | 229 | 205 | 201 | 226 | 211 | 209 | 257 | 329 | 484 | 591 | 753 | 842 | 784 | 788 | 755 | 701 | 686 | 612 | 636 | 501 | 552 | 381 |
Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana (Bad air quality days) | 15.2905 | 9.83146 | 0.406504 | 10.9434 | 8.38323 | 9.76331 | 13.6986 | 12.5373 | 15.3631 | 7.51445 | 2.85714 | 5.89888 | 3.66197 | 4.10959 | 1.93906 | 3.17003 | 1.16959 | 1.91781 | 0.566572 | 0 | 4.98615 | 1.983 | 2.05279 | 4.24929 | 0.819672 | 2.19178 | 2.19178 | 3.0137 | 5.47945 | 15.0685 | 13.6986 | 17.2911 | 16.9444 | 7.71513 | 18.1818 | 11.8156 | 3.65169 | 14.4928 | 8.61111 | 3.58127 | 5.84958 | 13.4247 | 5.29248 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
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([270,256,226,220,336,417,594,665,648,688,612,553,451,447,356,336,307,292,296,211,223,229,205,201,226,211,209,257,329,484,591,753,842,784,788,755,701,686,612,636,501,552,381,])
array_2 = np.array([15.2905,9.83146,0.406504,10.9434,8.38323,9.76331,13.6986,12.5373,15.3631,7.51445,2.85714,5.89888,3.66197,4.10959,1.93906,3.17003,1.16959,1.91781,0.566572,0,4.98615,1.983,2.05279,4.24929,0.819672,2.19178,2.19178,3.0137,5.47945,15.0685,13.6986,17.2911,16.9444,7.71513,18.1818,11.8156,3.65169,14.4928,8.61111,3.58127,5.84958,13.4247,5.29248,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Dexter"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Popularity of the first name Dexter
- Line chart for only Air pollution in Great Falls, Montana
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Dexter's Laboratory: Investigating the Correlation between the Popularity of the Name Dexter and Air Pollution in Great Falls, Montana
Your rating skills are top-notch!
Correlation ID: 2911 · Black Variable ID: 3250 · Red Variable ID: 20675