Report an error
Number of times 6 was a winning Mega Millions number correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Colorado | r=0.92 | 6yrs | No |
The number of restaurant cooks in Virgin Islands | r=0.86 | 18yrs | No |
How nerdy SciShow Space YouTube video titles are | r=0.8 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Bachelor's degrees awarded in consumer sciences | r=0.77 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Ariel | r=0.7 | 19yrs | No |
Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series | r=0.67 | 12yrs | No |
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' | r=0.54 | 17yrs | No |
Number of times 6 was a winning Mega Millions number 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.)