I'm not dumb, I suggest you go back to school and learn to talk to people.
I have read that correctly and you have completely failed to read my first line " ACCESS". Also in my text, I refer to quality of goods (food that doesn't make you sick), etc.
Raw numbers or even percentages do not account for access and covers up the real poverty.
How is this meaningful? This graph doesn't account for ~~inflation, and~~ ACCESS to facilities.
Say you have even a $100 a day. Does that guarantee you medicines, food that doesn't make you sick, clothes, shelter, etc.?
Don't forget, Our World In Data is largely funded by the Gates & Melinda Foundation and has become a propaganda machine that "green-washes" a lot of high emission industries, services, etc including AI.
I don't have the link at hand (will search it later when I get the time) where they tried to show that somehow AI Data centers weren't so bad for the environment when emissions from agriculture were "taken into the perspective".
This is kind of dumb comparisons this organisation often makes because while one literally sustains us, the other is a techbro propping machine, and they are quite happy to make that comparison and call it an " infograph".
Edit: I had written "doesn't account for inflation" in the text. I meant to add the word accurately as inter country comparison, currency adjustment , and inflation are not linear changes and no algebraic formula can directly compare one with the other.
Ah, clearly age has affected my ability to read and comprehend. Thanks for correcting me.
Goes back to flint knapping
to call me an elder lemming at this point,
Looks at profile age: 1 years 4 months.
Me (2 years 7 months): Huh, guess I'll just take my prehistoric ass out of here and go chip flints.
That is why Elsevier, Springer and publishing houses work so hard to paywall knowledge and keep it inaccessible, lest we become corrupted.
/s
I avoided commenting on this because this makes me very angry. What they did to that boy was fucking disgusting.
Could you type this a bit quieter?
At some point, the Japanese scientific community decided that the Nobel Prize Committee was full of shit and decided to pivot their entire scientific apparatus to studying really niche and hilarious topics that make their researchers competent for the true mark of honour: the Ig Nobel Prize.
You have to be an absolute chad like @The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world or a complete nutter like bubblybubbles
Mother of God, is this a joke? I read that interview a couple of times thinking maybe there is some loophole like "I wasn't involved in the killing , but definitely was there in the planning" kind of catch, but nope.
Did I just read propaganda or did the US really kill a guy not involved in 9/11?
OK, let's put aside my statement about the Foundation that seems to offend you so badly and look at the graph itself.
Understand that "adjusting" values to 2011 prices is neither linear nor always accurate. Besides, the range of goods and services available at the yr. 2011 $5 equivalent is not valid as they either cease to exist or do not come at the same quality.
Besides, this is a global measurement, so serious assumptions about methodology notwithstanding, there is almost non universal or global policy (mix or single) that will accurately demonstrate decrease in extreme poverty.
Just to counter your remark on ad hominem attack, you have assumed /deemed me as someone who doesn't understand all this. I understand the graph perfectly well and have even been part of analytical teams that make these graphs. I know what happens behind the scenes and the inadvertent data misrepresentation when dealing with multifactorial representations.