Report an error
Popularity of the first name Malia correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Electricity generation in Antigua and Barbuda | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion | r=0.95 | 44yrs | No |
Electricity generation in Cayman Islands | r=0.94 | 42yrs | No |
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Oregon | r=0.94 | 12yrs | No |
USA Population | r=0.93 | 48yrs | No |
Budget for largest movie production | r=0.91 | 47yrs | No |
Total number of automotive recalls | r=0.91 | 48yrs | No |
UFO sightings in New Jersey | r=0.87 | 47yrs | No |
Intel Corporation's annual revenue | r=0.87 | 36yrs | No |
Average temperature in Sydney | r=0.81 | 48yrs | No |
The number of sociologists in California | r=0.77 | 20yrs | No |
Automotive recalls issued by Volkswagen Group of America | r=0.65 | 48yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Malia 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.)