Report an error
Total length of LockPickingLawyer YouTube videos correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of dental assistants in Wyoming | r=0.98 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the first name Conor | r=0.97 | 8yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Harley | r=0.95 | 8yrs | No |
The number of mathematicians in Virginia | r=0.94 | 8yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about social media | r=0.88 | 9yrs | No |
The number of chemists in Florida | r=0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one' | r=0.83 | 8yrs | No |
xkcd comics published about wikipedia | r=0.76 | 9yrs | No |
Total length of LockPickingLawyer YouTube videos also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)