John Oliver is being pedantic about Venn diagrams...
John Oliver is being pedantic about Venn diagrams...
Source (restricted to non-HBO-Max regions)
Kamala Harris is known to love Venn diagrams and would be cringing hard at this.
For reference, circles in Venn (Euler) diagrams are sets of objects with a certain property. Select objects are shown inside or outside of each circle depending on whether they belong to the set.
A good example is xkcd 2962:
Can someone explain what part he's incorrect about? (Since we're in ConfidentlyIncorrect)
Which part of the tweet did you think was right?
Maybe I should ask OP who it is they're saying is confidently incorrect? I originally thought that they were saying Oliver was incorrect, but your response makes me wonder if they meant the Trump campaign response was incorrect.
Basically, I just want clarification.
I'm not saying either is good use of Venn diagrams (as opposed to the provided xkcd comic). A better "mathematical" way to express the relation is simply "KAMA + BLA = KAMABLA" (yes, the mathematical sign "+" is not used for concatenation in math but you get the point).
The tweet would work if we assume:
- Left set A contains words that include "KAMA", notably "KAMA" itself
- Right set B contains words that include "BLA", notably "BLA" itself
- Their intersection A ∩ B contains words that belong to both sets, notably "KAMABLA".
Is it a technically correct Venn diagram? I'd say it could be, given the above weird assumptions.
Is a Venn diagram the correct tool for the job? No.As for JO's example with sea creatures: if we assume
- A is a set of dolphins
- B is a set of sharks
- their intersection is an empty set: A ∩ B = { } because no dolphins are sharks
JO's example might work if
- A was a set of properties of dolphins
- B was a set of properties of sharks
- their intersection includes "lives in the ocean": A ∩ B = {"lives in the ocean", ...} because "lives in the ocean" is both a property of dolphins and a property of sharks
However, this essentially turns around the convention "sets are defined by properties and include objects" to "sets are defined by objects and include their properties", which is in my opinion even more cringey than considering "words containing 'BLA'" a notable set. (From a mathematical standpoint. The entire "Kamabla" thing is pure cringe in the practical sense.)
Guess this is the difference between chart bitches and diagram enjoyers.
Chart bitches be like: "The y-axis does not start at 0! Misleading!"
Diagram enjoyers be like: "It mathematically cannot because it's a logarithmic scale, which is the only way this data can be reasonably visualized; but I suppose they should have made the y-labels bigger and add minor horizontal gridlines so even people like you notice that."
This guy has a very punchable face and is insufferable. I don't understand how he is so popular.
If you talk fast enough and are self deprecating its funny.
He has a live audience so he (and the writing team) knows what's funny, and limits self-deprecation to about twice per episode. The show mostly features more conventional joke material (references to pop culture, defying expectations, reframing events in surprising context).