Report an error
Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Wausau, Wisconsin | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
The number of phlebotomists in Montana | r=0.92 | 11yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Delaware | r=0.91 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Air pollution in Ottawa | r=0.9 | 6yrs | No |
Total views on MrBeast's YouTube videos | r=0.79 | 12yrs | No |
How trendy 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are | r=0.71 | 11yrs | No |
How 'hip and with it' Numberphile YouTube video titles are | r=0.4 | 13yrs | No |
How geeky Steve Mould's YouTube video titles are | r=0.07 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Number of times 21 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.)