▲ 48 ▼ Mean Height of 19yo Males in Select Countries, 1985-2019 (lemmy.world) submitted 6 months ago by cm0002@lemmings.world to c/dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz 21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (15 children) how to manipulate graphs 101 permalink fedilink source hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (13 children) I mean everything is very clearly labeled and only 1 axis is cut, because without the cut you wouldn't see many differences in the top part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -7 points 6 months ago (12 children) wouldn’t see many differences in the top part. you would see them, they just wouldn't look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago* (8 children) Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children) Stop making sense! Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -4 points 6 months ago because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?! permalink fedilink source parent [–] waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child) Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don't start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago Not a particularly beautiful graph, but it seems legit? What do you mean by manipulate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (13 children) I mean everything is very clearly labeled and only 1 axis is cut, because without the cut you wouldn't see many differences in the top part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -7 points 6 months ago (12 children) wouldn’t see many differences in the top part. you would see them, they just wouldn't look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago* (8 children) Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children) Stop making sense! Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -4 points 6 months ago because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?! permalink fedilink source parent [–] waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child) Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don't start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -7 points 6 months ago (12 children) wouldn’t see many differences in the top part. you would see them, they just wouldn't look as massive as they do before you notice that the y axis does not start at zero. which is exactly the manipulation 101 i am talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago* (8 children) Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children) Stop making sense! Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -4 points 6 months ago because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?! permalink fedilink source parent [–] waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child) Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don't start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago* (8 children) Who is zero centimeters tall though? Why would you start at zero when the data doesnt start at zero. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children) Stop making sense! Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -4 points 6 months ago because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (6 children) Stop making sense! Good news everyone, this graph should start at zero as we are comparing humans to tardigrades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -5 points 6 months ago (5 children) this graph doesn't compare heights, it compares speed of change and it is heavily distorted in this representation. you think you are delivering some sick burn, but you are just making fool of yourself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (4 children) It's not speed, it's the height over time. The derivative of this is the speed, and then the axis in this case should not start at 0, it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children) It’s not speed, it’s the height over time yeah, it is not speed, it is unit over time, so, wait for it... speed. The derivative of this is the speed and its visual perception is distorted due to the truncated axis. it should start at negative because there are periods where the speed is negative. "where the speed is negative"? wait, what, i thought this is not speed - as per your first sentence. also, the axis should start at zero, because... at some point the height of the person was negative? well thank you for your input 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children) Height as a function of time results in... Height. Delta height divided by Delta time is average speed. This is basic math. If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. I'm going to assume you're just a troll, nobody can be so dumb. Edit: just as an observation, if you want to look at the speed, the truncated axis is irrelevant, because the intersection value is derived to 0. You really don't know this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child) If this was speed, there would be points of negative speed, when height is lower at a greater time. there is no need for the height axis to start below zero just because there is negative speed at some point. i am going to assume you are just dumb, because i do believe people can be that dumb. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago If you don't mind not seeing the data, I guess you don't need to show 0, but that would be really stupid. I'm character, almost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -4 points 6 months ago because doing it otherwise misleads the viewer into thinking that the change is much larger than it really is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago So you are not only the kind of person that plots useless graphs that show mostly nothing but on top of that you expect others to do the same?! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child) Are you unable to comprehend graphs that don't start at zero? Should the year start at zero as well? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Year should start at 0, but we need absolute 0 based on the big bang. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago Not a particularly beautiful graph, but it seems legit? What do you mean by manipulate? permalink fedilink source parent
