This is a weird one. Bear with me. From !dataisbeautiful@lemmygrad.ml:
So I said to myself, “that’s a little bit weird. The US one going up, I can actually believe, but the North Korea one being lower is definitely wrong.”
I think Our World In Data is just being shoddy, as they often do.
https://www.wfp.org/countries/democratic-peoples-republic-korea
The thing I found funny, and why I’m posting here, comes from observing why it was that they started their graph at 2003 and exactly at 2003.
I feel like you could use this as a slide in a little seminar in “how to curate your data until it matches your conclusion, instead of the other way around.”
And also, I don’t think the hunger rate suddenly dropped from epic to 0 exactly in 2003, I think more likely Our World in Data is just a little bit shoddy about their data.
Most of their arguments in conversations rely on strawmanning anyway, so it’s expected they don’t want you to look up any source except ones that agree with them. Especially ““NATOpedia”” 🙄 but this obscure ML post written 6 years ago on a niche forum is a completely valid source!
And everything needs to be “contextualized.” Meaning, they can decide what your sources actually mean, even if it’s something different than what they say.
“Can I do that to your sources too?”
“Don’t be ridiculous. I don’t even have sources. Are you sealioning again?”