Did the NYT back down?

Pulse Back in the App Store
[Via Daring Fireball]

MG Siegler:

Pulse has already made a triumphant return to the store, their Twitter account confirms. So what happened? Did Jobs himself step into the fray and get the NYT to ease up? […] When asked how the app returned so quickly, co-creator Akshay Kothari wrote back: “We’re trying to figure that out ourselves. Keep you posted.”

[More]

Nice to see innovative apps get their reward. I’ll be interested in hearing just what happened. I guess having Jobs on your side helps. Pulse is back at the App Store. I wonder if the NYT is still a default.

Lagging the field

microsoft word by Rob Enslin

Microsoft reveals Office for Mac 2011 will be 32-bit only
[Via AppleInsider]

Set for release this fall, Microsoft’s forthcoming Office for Mac 2011 will only be available as a 32-bit product because it hasn’t completely transitioned to Cocoa for Mac OS X.

[More]

How many years has Cocoa been out? While I am glad that MS is finally getting out a new Office – and the MAcBU guys at MS are really doing yeoman’s work – the Mac version never does seem to use all the advantages that the Mac has to offer.

Office has always seemed to be an attempt to make the Mac look like a PC. Things I do on every other Mac application do not do the same thing in Office.

I transitioned to Keynote years ago. I have been doing more and more with Pages and Numbers recently because of the iPad. They act like Mac applications and I get more done. Heck, I even use them to create graphics that I cut and paste around. Easier to do than Illustrator, for sure.

Update on misleading graphic

In the comments from the previous post, David Bradley at Sciencebase mentioned that he has redone the original graphic with the correct representation of relative sizes using the proper sized circles. It more accurately provides information while also showing the difference from the original circles.

Very nicely done.

Misleading graphic on oil spills

Pie Are Square; Oil Spills Are Round
[Via Cosmic Variance]

Ah, not this one again. The folks at Iglu Cruises have put together a helpful infographic to explain various features of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (via Deep Sea News). Here’s the bit where they compare the recent spill (which, by the way, is still ongoing at a fantastic rate) to previous oil spills. Click for full resolution.

Oil spills: diameter vs. area

Doesn’t make the current fiasco seem so bad, does it? That little blob on the left looks a lot smaller than the blob right next to it, representing Saddam Hussein’s dump of oil into the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War. In fact, when you think about it, it looks a lot smaller. Which is weird, when you look at the numbers and see that the current spill is 38 million gallons (as of May 27), while the Iraqi spill was 520 million gallons, a factor of about 14 times bigger. The blob representing Iraq’s spill seems a lot more than 14 times the size of the blob for the current spill. You don’t think — no, they couldn’t have done that. Could they?

Yes, they did. When measure the diameter of the circle representing the Iraqi spill, I get about 360 pixels (in the high-res version), while the smaller spill is about 26 pixels — a factor of about 14 larger. But that’s the diameter, not the area. The area of a circle, as many of us learned when we were little, is proportional to the square of its radius: A = π r2. The radius is just half the diameter, so the area is proportional to the diameter squared, not to the diameter. In other words, that big blob is about (14)2 = 196 times the area of the little one, when it should be only 14 times bigger.

I remember reading on some other blog about this same mistake being made in a completely different context, but I have no recollection of where. (Update: it was at Good Math, Bad Math, sensibly enough.) Probably won’t be the last time.

[More]

Math idiots continue to do this – compare linear differences with a graphic displaying areas. The radius of each circle is what SHOULD be compared, but the figure makes it seem like it is the area that should be compared. Only someone mathematically illiterate, or purposefully misleading, would use such a figure.

The numbers are bad enough but improper display of data, particularly in a way that provides a a bias result, really tick me off. Check out the Good Math, Bad Math link to get a better idea of how prevalent this bad type of graphic really is (ie in financial statements all the time).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers