Hardly the LEAST accurate, Scott. At least ONE of them got it right. And not close enough, but exactly right. That's better than any chart our government puts out there.

To be precise… it's precise, but highly inaccurate. Since the bars are perfectly deterministic and predictable, the percent chance that any of the bars will reach the top of the graph is either 100% or 0%. It might not be the least accurate graph ever, but at 10% accuracy it's pretty far down.

tbh where is the top of the graph? are we seeing just some of the graph? does it stretch into infinity?
yeah i think we're looking too far into this, can we all just appreciate the joke, laugh and move on please? =]

omg… guys, don't you get it?! those bars don't move, so they will NEVER hit the top of the graph by any chance. not even the tall one, cause it doesn't reach the top. if it did, the probability would be 100%, and that would be correct, but this way it's 0%. therefore this graph has 0% accuracy. ;)

Actually, completely the opposite… least accurate graph ever! Only one of those bars is right. There's a 0% chance the rest will hit the top.

Hardly the LEAST accurate, Scott. At least ONE of them got it right. And not close enough, but exactly right. That's better than any chart our government puts out there.

To be precise… it's precise, but highly inaccurate. Since the bars are perfectly deterministic and predictable, the percent chance that any of the bars will reach the top of the graph is either 100% or 0%. It might not be the least accurate graph ever, but at 10% accuracy it's pretty far down.

I see 0% accuracy — that tall bar doesn't reach the top either.

i too see 0% accuracy none of them touch

And? Should it? No. Then it has a 99,8% chance to reach the top. Who says it must be at 100%?

Really? Isn't that just playing semantics?

tbh where is the top of the graph? are we seeing just some of the graph? does it stretch into infinity?

yeah i think we're looking too far into this, can we all just appreciate the joke, laugh and move on please? =]

Oooh, good catch! You're right, it's completely inaccurate!

maybe the graph is rotated around because we're going old school here and using a projector?

wow nvm, im still half asleep

omg… guys, don't you get it?! those bars don't move, so they will NEVER hit the top of the graph by any chance. not even the tall one, cause it doesn't reach the top. if it did, the probability would be 100%, and that would be correct, but this way it's 0%. therefore this graph has 0% accuracy. ;)

The creator meant for it to be silly. See more of them.

Ben Greenman’s Museum of Silly Charts http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/BenGreenman