Extremely common. One of the two series will clarify RHS to let you know that its axis is the one on the right.

I've even seen charts with three or more Y axes like two on each side.

That's not even misleading, that's a first-year graphic designer who smoked crack with a 14-year-old day trader and decided to make charts.

In OP's chart the problem is more the scale than the start point, but it's always about context.

I agree that it can be used to mislead but that isn't always the case.

Take disposable income. Straight from Fred. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

If you click on "view last 5 years" your Y axis is going to start way above zero. It just makes sense. If you click on "view max" you will get Y axis closer to zero because the range of values justifies it.

Of course it can be manipulated. As I said, it can be OK if the units are different or if the series have different standard deviations.

In every case it's important for the reader to look at the axes and draw their own conclusions.

I guess the larger lesson is Do Your Own Research.

1 is perfectly OK for when you need to zoom in to see the difference. Perhaps it can be better notified that the axis doesn't start at zero

2 is perfectly OK when you want to show correlation between to series that don't necessarily have the same unit or magnitude.

3 is the most questionable one because three years is a very short time frame (for some things). You can address that by adding a previous trend line.
I don't know if it qualifies as cherry picking though, or at least it's not what people mean when they use that term.

All in all these are not deceptive if you know how to look at a chart and if there's a modicum of context to the chart.

I appreciate the effort but not necessarily the execution.

If the definition of gadget is "technological object that we find interesting regardless of size" I guess it fits the bill.

I think you're legally obligated to call him your great great great grandpappy

When you say "Republicans vs Democrats" in that order it suggests that Republicans are on the numerator or at the top of the color scale. However, the top is blue and there is no legend.

So is blue Democrat or republican?

Also is it a difference in percentage points or a percent increase?

Looks like it's a mixed bag.

Frank the tank! Frank the tank!

Before opening the picture I thought I was going to be an army picture.

I still don't know what you meant by "owner I passed"

Holy shit, I had no idea he was so ripped.

Literally yesterday I was wondering about this. Thanks.

I changed one word in the github strategy and it no longer recognized the strategy. Changed buy to sell.

You have to write "Bitcoin (BTC)" in full for the text box to recognize it. One of the two should be enough, and it should probably suggest the full thing when you write "bit"

Needs a benchmark for comparison.

Also, it's not clear how much is being invested and at what point. It would be nice to have the chart illustrate entry points.

The pilots were technically kamikaze so all of this adds up

Should be ordered by some metric and should tell you the unemployment percent explicitly.

I'll read this later.

The same legislation that grants you the right to have an inefficient 8K TV in March 2023.

I'm going to have to go sentence by sentence because your comment is laughable.

> less peak power consumption will save the planet.

Partly, yes. Maybe not my TV specifically but billions of them working every day do have an effect.

> Better yet, stop eating meat & start eating bugs, they’re greener.

I try to cut back for sure, but me changing my diet for the rest of my life is absolutely not comparable to you having to wait a few months until the engineering is fixed. Not even a little bit.

> The amount of propaganda you guys eat from corporations and billionaires

You are literally defending the 8K lobby right now. They wrote the article that spawned this thread.
Remember when corporations told us that cigarettes didn't cause cancer?
Now they are telling us that they can't make efficient TVs.
Let's talk again in 12 months to see if they were able to decipher this unsolvable challenge.

> YOU as a person are 100% responsable for global warming is unbelievable

They don't say that and I don't believe it. I do believe we are all responsible of making green choices whenever we can by choosing to consume or not consume something, or to encourage or not encourage certain products and businesses. I don't encourage inefficient electronics.

> They live like kings, 1 polluting like 1 million of us pheasants,

I think you meant to say peasants. Yes, they are worse than us.

> but we must be held responsible for them.

No, each person is responsible for their own actions. They for theirs and we for ours.

> You guys can live like as you like,

Thank you for your permission. I will continue trying to not melt the planet.

> I have only 1 life

Fortunately.

> I won’t live like a dog.

So not getting an inefficient TV at an early date equates to "living like a dog." Gotcha. I'm going to try really hard to not die of laughter whenever I think of that.

Freedom to not die of global warming is a bigger right.

Your rights end where mine begin.

After hearing for decades of corporation shenanigans trying to avoid environmental standards I have ZERO empathy for them. Make it work, or don't sell it at all. 8K is not a human right FFS.

Majority doveish. Would be nice to see this chart again during a worldwide economic boom.