Except that their charts show the price of the stock/fund without adjusting for dividends, i.e. there is no way to graph "adjusted price" or "growth of a $1000 investment." So, when a mutual fund makes a big capital gain payout, which has no economic significance (they hand you a check for $X per share and the share price drops by $X), the chart shows a big dip. If you try to chart two securities together to compare them it is totally misleading because of the economically meaningless dips when there is a dividend or capital gain payout. They have the data to do this right, it is displayed as the "Adj Close" in the "historical prices" table, but they don't make it available in the charts. When they've been doing something that dumb for over a decade in spite of complaints, how can you trust anything they do?

Probably because many of the people that have Windows 8 did not choose Windows 8 -- they got it because it is virtually impossible to buy a computer without it, so the number of computers running Windows 8 is not a measure of its popularity (i.e. how many people actually want it). In contrast, anyone with Linux on their computer made an effort to put it there. Hence, as Anne put it, there is no meaningful way to compare the data.

Did you really delete your Facebook account, or just deactivate it?

Verizon Wireless has a 41% profit margin

You would never be able to use it on an airplane -- the seat in front of you would keep you from getting it open far enough for a decent viewing angle.

I think you mean this (courtesy of user "mib" a little farther down).

This assumes that the goal of the dating site is to find you a mate. It isn't. The goal is to get you to pay as much as possible in subscription fees, or view as many ads as possible so they can make money. If you find a mate, you quite subscribing and quit visiting the site, so that's no good. What keeps you on the site is the illusion that you've got at chance at that supermodel. The optimal situation for the dating site is to give you hope without success.

Go to a site like Match.com. Want to look around to see if there is anyone you would want to date? No problem, just create an account -- it's free! Of course, when other people see your account they will have no idea that you haven't paid the subscription fee and won't be able to read any of the emails they send to you unless you pay. So Match.com has new profiles popping up to give their subscribers hope, but the emails those subscribers are wasting their time sending aren't even seen. Perfectly OK to waste your time as long as it keeps you paying.

For anyone that is looking for it, the table was added in this blog post, not on the Washington Post site.

Doesn't the raw number of sole-country proposals seem like the wrong metric? It seems more sensible to divide the number of sole-country proposals by the total number of proposals for that country to see what fraction of its proposals have no support from other countries. From the next to last graph, it seems that Canada has both a lot of sole-country proposals and a lot of joint proposals. If the fraction of Canada's proposals that are sole proposals is not particularly high, the large number of Canadian sole-country proposals would just reflect them making a lot of proposals in general -- you might conclude that they are just putting more effort into getting the treaty right (in their opinion) than other countries. I only skimmed the article -- did I miss something?

Anyway, interesting analysis. Unfortunate that the Washington Post didn't make the graphs available in a format that is large enough to read the labels.

P.S. I'm not Canadian.

That $6.86 billion is after investors pumped $700 million into it in the IPO, so more of a neutral move than a wise one.

I wonder if they get paid for all those ad "impressions" that occur when the Slashdot tab I'm not looking at is refreshing itself all day long... A factor of four seems too small, though.

They store a history of each webpage, not just the most recent version.