Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the smog lifted in Dallas, it also lifted a weight off NASA's budget. You see, with cleaner air, there was less need for space-age air purification technology. Essentially, as the pollution decreased, so did the need for NASA's expertise in creating out-of-this-world solutions for environmental issues. Plus, without the thick pollution cloud, it was clear to the government that they could allocate funding elsewhere, leading to a cosmic decrease in NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. It's like the saying goes, when the air's cleaner in Texas, NASA's budget takes off for new frontiers!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Create a surreal Vaporwave-inspired image of a Dallas night sky filled with vibrant neon hues. The scene features amateur astronomers gathered in a park, surrounding by city skyline and distant, dazzling stars. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., politicians debate NASA's budget. The juxtaposition of the celestial scene and the political discourse should add an intriguing contrast to the image. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: inspired by bauhaus An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Vaporwave A scene from Skyrim Steampunk
ChatGPT: Vaporwave
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget, in the following situation: NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget decreased because with less air pollution in Dallas, the city's residents could see the stars more clearly. This led to a surge in amateur astronomers, who eventually discovered a planet entirely made of money, and the government decided to allocate more resources towards funding expeditions to this new heavenly body instead.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a clear Dallas night sky, amateur astronomers gather in a park, pointing their telescopes upwards as the stars twinkle brightly. The air is fresh and the city skyline is visible from a distance. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., politicians discuss NASA's budget, which has decreased as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. However, the discovery of a planet made entirely of money has led to a renewed interest in space exploration, prompting the government to allocate more resources toward funding expeditions to this new heavenly body.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Vaporwave ] and depicting this scene: In a clear Dallas night sky, amateur astronomers gather in a park, pointing their telescopes upwards as the stars twinkle brightly. The air is fresh and the city skyline is visible from a distance. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., politicians discuss NASA's budget, which has decreased as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. However, the discovery of a planet made entirely of money has led to a renewed interest in space exploration, prompting the government to allocate more resources toward funding expeditions to this new heavenly body. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Create a surreal Vaporwave-inspired image of a Dallas night sky filled with vibrant neon hues. The scene features amateur astronomers gathered in a park, surrounding by city skyline and distant, dazzling stars. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., politicians debate NASA's budget. The juxtaposition of the celestial scene and the political discourse should add an intriguing contrast to the image.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Air pollution in Dallas caused NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget to decrease. Include one good pun.
AI academic paper
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget The Journal of Cosmic Conundrums Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Make the title seem clever.
Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2023.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the pursuit of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves venturing into uncharted territory, seeking to unravel the perplexing mysteries that lie at the intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena. This pursuit frequently demands a keen eye for detail, a nose for uncovering hidden patterns, and perhaps a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we embark on this scientific journey, let us pause for a moment to ponder the cosmic ballet of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation within the vast expanse of the US Federal Budget.
The synthesis of these two variables invites us to consider a unique proposition: could the interstellar aspirations of NASA, reflected in its budgetary share, be tethered to the atmospheric struggle of our earthly counterparts in Dallas? It's as if the fiscal policies are reaching for the stars, yet the pollutants in the air are literally clouding their vision. One might say that the relationship between them is truly out of this world.
However, before delving into this celestial cocktail of pollutants and budgetary figures, it is essential to establish the groundwork for our inquiry. Like astronomers scanning the night sky for celestial bodies, we first scoured through decades of data on air quality in Dallas, dutifully measuring the ebb and flow of pollutants in the cosmic dance of atmospheric composition. It's almost like playing a game of "galactic hide-and-seek," except the contestants are not stars, but harmful air particles.
Upon donning our statistical spectacles, we sought to unmask any hidden constellations of correlation, embarking on a journey through the labyrinth of numerical landscapes. Imagine us as cosmic cartographers charting the terrain of data points, navigating through the cosmos of scatter plots and regression analyses. It's a bit like using a telescope to gaze at the stars, only instead, we're peering into spreadsheets and statistical software. And yes, on occasion, we also find ourselves lost in a "black hole" of data entry errors.
As our cosmic odyssey unfolds, we endeavor to shed light on the overarching question: does the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation bear atmospheric imprints, leaving us to ponder whether the pursuit of space exploration is interwoven with the struggles of environmental stewardship on our own planet? It's almost as if the budgets are orbiting in a cosmic waltz, with air pollution serving as the unseen partner guiding their steps. We're not just crunching numbers – we're waltzing through the statistical universe, seeking to decode the terrestrial-astrological duet.
In this study, we aim to not only unravel the enigmatic association between air pollution in Dallas and the share of NASA's budget within the federal budget but also to invite a broader conversation about the cosmic choreography of policy decisions. After all, as researchers, we should always remember that data analysis is not just about reaching for the stars – it's also about grounding our findings in the tangible realities of everyday life. Let's venture forth with a twinkle in our eyes and a hypothesis in our hearts, as we embark on this scientific escapade that lies at the intersection of earthly air and the cosmic budget.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the pursuit of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves venturing into uncharted territory, seeking to unravel the perplexing mysteries that lie at the intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena. This pursuit frequently demands a keen eye for detail, a nose for uncovering hidden patterns, and perhaps a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we embark on this scientific journey, let us pause for a moment to ponder the cosmic ballet of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation within the vast expanse of the US Federal Budget.
The synthesis of these two variables invites us to consider a unique proposition: could the interstellar aspirations of NASA, reflected in its budgetary share, be tethered to the atmospheric struggle of our earthly counterparts in Dallas? It's as if the fiscal policies are reaching for the stars, yet the pollutants in the air are literally clouding their vision. One might say that the relationship between them is truly out of this world.
However, before delving into this celestial cocktail of pollutants and budgetary figures, it is essential to establish the groundwork for our inquiry. Like astronomers scanning the night sky for celestial bodies, we first scoured through decades of data on air quality in Dallas, dutifully measuring the ebb and flow of pollutants in the cosmic dance of atmospheric composition. It's almost like playing a game of "galactic hide-and-seek," except the contestants are not stars, but harmful air particles.
Upon donning our statistical spectacles, we sought to unmask any hidden constellations of correlation, embarking on a journey through the labyrinth of numerical landscapes. Imagine us as cosmic cartographers charting the terrain of data points, navigating through the cosmos of scatter plots and regression analyses. It's a bit like using a telescope to gaze at the stars, only instead, we're peering into spreadsheets and statistical software. And yes, on occasion, we also find ourselves lost in a "black hole" of data entry errors.
As our cosmic odyssey unfolds, we endeavor to shed light on the overarching question: does the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation bear atmospheric imprints, leaving us to ponder whether the pursuit of space exploration is interwoven with the struggles of environmental stewardship on our own planet? It's almost as if the budgets are orbiting in a cosmic waltz, with air pollution serving as the unseen partner guiding their steps. We're not just crunching numbers – we're waltzing through the statistical universe, seeking to decode the terrestrial-astrological duet.
In this study, we aim to not only unravel the enigmatic association between air pollution in Dallas and the share of NASA's budget within the federal budget but also to invite a broader conversation about the cosmic choreography of policy decisions. After all, as researchers, we should always remember that data analysis is not just about reaching for the stars – it's also about grounding our findings in the tangible realities of everyday life. Let's venture forth with a twinkle in our eyes and a hypothesis in our hearts, as we embark on this scientific escapade that lies at the intersection of earthly air and the cosmic budget.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous studies have explored the intricate relationship between environmental factors and budgetary allocations, highlighting the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated phenomena. In "Smith et al.'s study," the authors find a compelling correlation between increasing levels of air pollution in urban centers and the allocation of resources to space exploration initiatives. This notion prompts us to consider whether the composition of Earth's atmosphere could be casting a subtle, or perhaps not so subtle, influence on the decision-making process surrounding these allocations.
Dad Joke: Why did the astronaut break up with his girlfriend? Because he needed space!
Furthermore, "Doe and Jones' analysis" delves into the historical patterns of budget appropriation for NASA, unveiling intriguing fluctuations that mirror the ebb and flow of air quality indices in metropolitan areas. This alignment of budget trends with environmental dynamics beckons us to ponder the possibility of an ethereal connection between the two, as if the celestial bodies governing federal expenditures are susceptible to the gravitational pull of terrestrial pollutants.
Dad Joke: Did you hear about the claustrophobic astronaut? He just needed a little space.
Beyond the confines of scholarly inquiries, a selection of non-fiction literature on space exploration and environmental science provides additional insights into the broader context of our research. Works such as "The Overview Effect" and "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate" enrich our understanding of the profound implications associated with human endeavors beyond Earth's bounds and the ecological challenges we face.
Drawing inspiration from fictional narratives, titles like "The Martian" and "Interstellar" invite us to explore the juxtaposition of extraterrestrial pursuits with earthly predicaments, prompting contemplation on the potential interplay between NASA's budgetary trajectory and the environmental concerns encapsulated by air pollution in Dallas.
Dad Joke: Why don't astronauts get hungry in space? Because they lose their apPETite!
In the realm of internet culture, memes such as "Houston, We Have a Problem" and "NASA Budget: Then vs. Now" encapsulate the public's fascination with the expanse of NASA's activities and evoke a lighthearted reflection on the fluctuating priorities within federal budget allocations, all while resonating with the underlying tensions of environmental preservation and space exploration.
As we navigate through the academic landscape and popular discourse surrounding our research inquiry, we are reminded that the interplay of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget may hold profound implications that extend beyond conventional scholarly investigation. It is in this spirit of curiosity and cosmic mirth that we forge ahead, seeking to unravel the celestial enigma that intertwines these seemingly incongruous facets of human endeavor.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org . You used data from 1980 to 2023
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the pursuit of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves venturing into uncharted territory, seeking to unravel the perplexing mysteries that lie at the intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena. This pursuit frequently demands a keen eye for detail, a nose for uncovering hidden patterns, and perhaps a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we embark on this scientific journey, let us pause for a moment to ponder the cosmic ballet of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation within the vast expanse of the US Federal Budget.
The synthesis of these two variables invites us to consider a unique proposition: could the interstellar aspirations of NASA, reflected in its budgetary share, be tethered to the atmospheric struggle of our earthly counterparts in Dallas? It's as if the fiscal policies are reaching for the stars, yet the pollutants in the air are literally clouding their vision. One might say that the relationship between them is truly out of this world.
However, before delving into this celestial cocktail of pollutants and budgetary figures, it is essential to establish the groundwork for our inquiry. Like astronomers scanning the night sky for celestial bodies, we first scoured through decades of data on air quality in Dallas, dutifully measuring the ebb and flow of pollutants in the cosmic dance of atmospheric composition. It's almost like playing a game of "galactic hide-and-seek," except the contestants are not stars, but harmful air particles.
Upon donning our statistical spectacles, we sought to unmask any hidden constellations of correlation, embarking on a journey through the labyrinth of numerical landscapes. Imagine us as cosmic cartographers charting the terrain of data points, navigating through the cosmos of scatter plots and regression analyses. It's a bit like using a telescope to gaze at the stars, only instead, we're peering into spreadsheets and statistical software. And yes, on occasion, we also find ourselves lost in a "black hole" of data entry errors.
As our cosmic odyssey unfolds, we endeavor to shed light on the overarching question: does the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation bear atmospheric imprints, leaving us to ponder whether the pursuit of space exploration is interwoven with the struggles of environmental stewardship on our own planet? It's almost as if the budgets are orbiting in a cosmic waltz, with air pollution serving as the unseen partner guiding their steps. We're not just crunching numbers – we're waltzing through the statistical universe, seeking to decode the terrestrial-astrological duet.
In this study, we aim to not only unravel the enigmatic association between air pollution in Dallas and the share of NASA's budget within the federal budget but also to invite a broader conversation about the cosmic choreography of policy decisions. After all, as researchers, we should always remember that data analysis is not just about reaching for the stars – it's also about grounding our findings in the tangible realities of everyday life. Let's venture forth with a twinkle in our eyes and a hypothesis in our hearts, as we embark on this scientific escapade that lies at the intersection of earthly air and the cosmic budget.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To capture the cosmic dance between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation, our research team embarked on a methodological odyssey that traversed the realms of data collection, statistical analysis, and a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we aimed to unearth the entangled relationship between these two variables, we followed a multi-faceted approach, strategically designed to unravel the celestial enigma while reveling in the occasional pun.
Data Collection:
Our journey commenced with the meticulous collection of data spanning from the cosmic year of 1980 to the stellar epoch of 2023. We sourced air pollution data from the Environmental Protection Agency, meticulously sifting through an interstellar expanse of records to capture the ebbs and flows of airborne contaminants in the Dallas metropolitan area. It was akin to hunting for hidden constellations, albeit amidst a celestial sea of pollutant concentrations.
Meanwhile, for NASA's budget allocation as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget, we turned our telescopic lens toward Planetary.org, navigating through the cosmic terrain of fiscal records. Like astronomers meticulously tracking celestial bodies, we charted the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation – because, after all, there's nothing quite like navigating through budgetary figures to make one feel like an explorer gazing at the stars.
Statistical Analysis:
Upon assembling this astronomical trove of data, we employed a constellation of statistical methods to elucidate the intricate web of associations between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation. Embracing the wit of the cosmos, we opted for a punny approach, engaging in regression analyses that could be described as "out of this world" and conducting correlation studies that delved into the atmospheric depths of statistical significance – because what's science without a stellar jest or two?
The software tools of choice for our statistical endeavor included SPSS, R, and a dash of cosmic whimsy. In the midst of these statistical escapades, we navigated through the statistical universe, forging pathways through scatter plots and traversing the plains of hypothesis testing, all while sprinkling in astronomical puns – because when you're unraveling the cosmic connection between air pollution and NASA's budget, a bit of cosmic humor is a must.
Limitations:
While our foray into this cosmic juxtaposition yielded illuminating insights, it is not without its limitations. As with any scientific expedition, our methods encountered cosmic "hiccups" – or more formally, limitations. The use of secondary data sources introduces the potential for bias or measurement error, akin to the gravitational pull of extraneous variables affecting the trajectory of our findings. Nevertheless, armed with a celestial sense of humor and a diligent approach, we charted the celestial waters of correlation and statistical significance, uncovering the interstellar symphony that ties air pollution in Dallas to the trajectory of NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.
By navigating through statistical constellations and embracing the cosmic comedy woven into our research journey, we offer insightful findings that beckon the reader to ponder the terrestrial-astrological waltz between budgetary decisions and atmospheric stewardship. After all, in the cosmic ballet of scientific inquiry, who's to say we can't chuckle at a celestial dad joke or two along the way?
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org .
For the time period 1980 to 2023, you found a correlation 0.6908696, r-squared of 0.4773009, and p < 0.01.
One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the pursuit of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves venturing into uncharted territory, seeking to unravel the perplexing mysteries that lie at the intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena. This pursuit frequently demands a keen eye for detail, a nose for uncovering hidden patterns, and perhaps a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we embark on this scientific journey, let us pause for a moment to ponder the cosmic ballet of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation within the vast expanse of the US Federal Budget.
The synthesis of these two variables invites us to consider a unique proposition: could the interstellar aspirations of NASA, reflected in its budgetary share, be tethered to the atmospheric struggle of our earthly counterparts in Dallas? It's as if the fiscal policies are reaching for the stars, yet the pollutants in the air are literally clouding their vision. One might say that the relationship between them is truly out of this world.
However, before delving into this celestial cocktail of pollutants and budgetary figures, it is essential to establish the groundwork for our inquiry. Like astronomers scanning the night sky for celestial bodies, we first scoured through decades of data on air quality in Dallas, dutifully measuring the ebb and flow of pollutants in the cosmic dance of atmospheric composition. It's almost like playing a game of "galactic hide-and-seek," except the contestants are not stars, but harmful air particles.
Upon donning our statistical spectacles, we sought to unmask any hidden constellations of correlation, embarking on a journey through the labyrinth of numerical landscapes. Imagine us as cosmic cartographers charting the terrain of data points, navigating through the cosmos of scatter plots and regression analyses. It's a bit like using a telescope to gaze at the stars, only instead, we're peering into spreadsheets and statistical software. And yes, on occasion, we also find ourselves lost in a "black hole" of data entry errors.
As our cosmic odyssey unfolds, we endeavor to shed light on the overarching question: does the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation bear atmospheric imprints, leaving us to ponder whether the pursuit of space exploration is interwoven with the struggles of environmental stewardship on our own planet? It's almost as if the budgets are orbiting in a cosmic waltz, with air pollution serving as the unseen partner guiding their steps. We're not just crunching numbers – we're waltzing through the statistical universe, seeking to decode the terrestrial-astrological duet.
In this study, we aim to not only unravel the enigmatic association between air pollution in Dallas and the share of NASA's budget within the federal budget but also to invite a broader conversation about the cosmic choreography of policy decisions. After all, as researchers, we should always remember that data analysis is not just about reaching for the stars – it's also about grounding our findings in the tangible realities of everyday life. Let's venture forth with a twinkle in our eyes and a hypothesis in our hearts, as we embark on this scientific escapade that lies at the intersection of earthly air and the cosmic budget.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data unearthed an intriguing connection between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Our statistical investigation revealed a positive correlation coefficient of 0.6908696, suggesting a moderately strong linear relationship between the two variables. The r-squared value of 0.4773009 further corroborates the notion that approximately 47.73% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by changes in air pollution levels in Dallas. It seems that as the air pollution in Dallas goes up, so does NASA's piece of the budgetary pie. Talk about pollution pushing us to reach for the stars!
The resultant scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates this astronomical association, portraying a clear ascending trend that defies traditional earthly boundaries. The scatterplot is reminiscent of a starry night sky, with each data point twinkling like a cosmic anomaly waiting to be discovered. It's almost as if the budgetary decisions are propelled into the stratosphere by the polluted winds of change. One might even say that Dallas air pollution is the "jet fuel" for NASA's budgetary trajectory.
The p-value of less than 0.01 underlines the statistical significance of our findings, reinforcing the robustness of the observed relationship. This suggests that the likelihood of the correlation occurring by mere chance is lower than the probability of finding a four-leaf clover in an astronaut's helmet. In other words, the association between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation is about as probable as a rocket launching on St. Patrick's Day.
Overall, our results provide compelling evidence of a noteworthy link between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the larger federal financial framework. While the precise mechanisms underlying this association remain shrouded in cosmic mystery, our findings beckon researchers and policymakers to consider the interplanetary implications of earthly environmental challenges. It's a reminder that even amidst the vastness of space, our planet's struggles and triumphs leave an indelible mark on the celestial sphere, shaping the trajectories of budgetary decisions and cosmic exploration alike. As we marvel at this cosmic dance of variables, it becomes abundantly clear that in the universe of statistics, the sky is not the limit – it's just the beginning of our limitless inquiries.
-------
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous studies have explored the intricate relationship between environmental factors and budgetary allocations, highlighting the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated phenomena. In "Smith et al.'s study," the authors find a compelling correlation between increasing levels of air pollution in urban centers and the allocation of resources to space exploration initiatives. This notion prompts us to consider whether the composition of Earth's atmosphere could be casting a subtle, or perhaps not so subtle, influence on the decision-making process surrounding these allocations.
Dad Joke: Why did the astronaut break up with his girlfriend? Because he needed space!
Furthermore, "Doe and Jones' analysis" delves into the historical patterns of budget appropriation for NASA, unveiling intriguing fluctuations that mirror the ebb and flow of air quality indices in metropolitan areas. This alignment of budget trends with environmental dynamics beckons us to ponder the possibility of an ethereal connection between the two, as if the celestial bodies governing federal expenditures are susceptible to the gravitational pull of terrestrial pollutants.
Dad Joke: Did you hear about the claustrophobic astronaut? He just needed a little space.
Beyond the confines of scholarly inquiries, a selection of non-fiction literature on space exploration and environmental science provides additional insights into the broader context of our research. Works such as "The Overview Effect" and "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate" enrich our understanding of the profound implications associated with human endeavors beyond Earth's bounds and the ecological challenges we face.
Drawing inspiration from fictional narratives, titles like "The Martian" and "Interstellar" invite us to explore the juxtaposition of extraterrestrial pursuits with earthly predicaments, prompting contemplation on the potential interplay between NASA's budgetary trajectory and the environmental concerns encapsulated by air pollution in Dallas.
Dad Joke: Why don't astronauts get hungry in space? Because they lose their apPETite!
In the realm of internet culture, memes such as "Houston, We Have a Problem" and "NASA Budget: Then vs. Now" encapsulate the public's fascination with the expanse of NASA's activities and evoke a lighthearted reflection on the fluctuating priorities within federal budget allocations, all while resonating with the underlying tensions of environmental preservation and space exploration.
As we navigate through the academic landscape and popular discourse surrounding our research inquiry, we are reminded that the interplay of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget may hold profound implications that extend beyond conventional scholarly investigation. It is in this spirit of curiosity and cosmic mirth that we forge ahead, seeking to unravel the celestial enigma that intertwines these seemingly incongruous facets of human endeavor.
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data unearthed an intriguing connection between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Our statistical investigation revealed a positive correlation coefficient of 0.6908696, suggesting a moderately strong linear relationship between the two variables. The r-squared value of 0.4773009 further corroborates the notion that approximately 47.73% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by changes in air pollution levels in Dallas. It seems that as the air pollution in Dallas goes up, so does NASA's piece of the budgetary pie. Talk about pollution pushing us to reach for the stars!
The resultant scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates this astronomical association, portraying a clear ascending trend that defies traditional earthly boundaries. The scatterplot is reminiscent of a starry night sky, with each data point twinkling like a cosmic anomaly waiting to be discovered. It's almost as if the budgetary decisions are propelled into the stratosphere by the polluted winds of change. One might even say that Dallas air pollution is the "jet fuel" for NASA's budgetary trajectory.
The p-value of less than 0.01 underlines the statistical significance of our findings, reinforcing the robustness of the observed relationship. This suggests that the likelihood of the correlation occurring by mere chance is lower than the probability of finding a four-leaf clover in an astronaut's helmet. In other words, the association between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation is about as probable as a rocket launching on St. Patrick's Day.
Overall, our results provide compelling evidence of a noteworthy link between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the larger federal financial framework. While the precise mechanisms underlying this association remain shrouded in cosmic mystery, our findings beckon researchers and policymakers to consider the interplanetary implications of earthly environmental challenges. It's a reminder that even amidst the vastness of space, our planet's struggles and triumphs leave an indelible mark on the celestial sphere, shaping the trajectories of budgetary decisions and cosmic exploration alike. As we marvel at this cosmic dance of variables, it becomes abundantly clear that in the universe of statistics, the sky is not the limit – it's just the beginning of our limitless inquiries.
---
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of our study provide substantial support for prior research that has speculated on the interconnectedness of environmental factors and budgetary allocations. Building on the findings of "Smith et al." and "Doe and Jones," we not only reaffirmed the presence of a robust correlation between air pollution levels in metropolitan areas and the share of the national budget dedicated to space exploration initiatives but also delved deeper into elucidating the strength and statistical significance of this relationship. The statistical analysis unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a notably strong and statistically significant association between the variables.
This discovery suggests that the influence of air pollution on NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget may not just be a fleeting cosmic coincidence but rather a tangible correlation with real-world implications. It seems that as the atmospheric particles in Dallas swirl and mix, so do the budgetary decisions that seem to defy gravity. Perhaps this connection can be likened to the gravitational pull of a celestial body, except in this instance, it is the earthly pollutants pulling the strings of federal expenditure. It's as if the Stardust of the cosmos has earthly origins.
Moreover, in the spirit of cosmic humor, one might quip that the surge in NASA's budget allocation with worsening air quality in Dallas is akin to a "launching pad" for budgetary expansion. The stimulus for increased funding may not come from the stars, but from the smoggy skies. Who would have thought that the Dallas smog could propel NASA's funding to new heights?
Our discoveries affirm the longstanding fascination with the juxtaposition of environmental dynamics and astronomical aspirations, hinting at the potential interconnectedness of Earth and space in the context of budgetary decisions. It's a reminder that even as we venture beyond our atmosphere, our planet holds the reins to some extent. The results prompt us to ponder whether by mitigating air pollution in urban centers, we may not only enhance the quality of life on Earth but also chart a different trajectory for federal financial allocations and space exploration initiatives. This notion lends new depth to the familiar phrase "Earth to space connection," demonstrating that the budgetary decisions of NASA are not just celestial matters but have earthly roots as well.
In essence, our findings beckon the scientific community to embrace a paradigm shift in understanding the cosmic ballet of budgetary allocations and earthly environmental challenges. It's a call to contemplate the harmonious interplay between the terrestrial and the extraterrestrial, reminding us that even amid the complexities of federal budgetary decisions and the allure of cosmic exploration, the stars sometimes align with the pollutants, creating a celestial dance of statistical significance. Keep your eyes on the sky and the air quality index, for they may hold the key to unlocking the celestial secrets of budgetary trajectories and air pollution. After all, in the grand narrative of Earth and space, every statistical discovery is a small step for research but a giant leap for cosmic inquiries.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the pursuit of scientific inquiry, researchers often find themselves venturing into uncharted territory, seeking to unravel the perplexing mysteries that lie at the intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena. This pursuit frequently demands a keen eye for detail, a nose for uncovering hidden patterns, and perhaps a sprinkle of cosmic humor. As we embark on this scientific journey, let us pause for a moment to ponder the cosmic ballet of air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation within the vast expanse of the US Federal Budget.
The synthesis of these two variables invites us to consider a unique proposition: could the interstellar aspirations of NASA, reflected in its budgetary share, be tethered to the atmospheric struggle of our earthly counterparts in Dallas? It's as if the fiscal policies are reaching for the stars, yet the pollutants in the air are literally clouding their vision. One might say that the relationship between them is truly out of this world.
However, before delving into this celestial cocktail of pollutants and budgetary figures, it is essential to establish the groundwork for our inquiry. Like astronomers scanning the night sky for celestial bodies, we first scoured through decades of data on air quality in Dallas, dutifully measuring the ebb and flow of pollutants in the cosmic dance of atmospheric composition. It's almost like playing a game of "galactic hide-and-seek," except the contestants are not stars, but harmful air particles.
Upon donning our statistical spectacles, we sought to unmask any hidden constellations of correlation, embarking on a journey through the labyrinth of numerical landscapes. Imagine us as cosmic cartographers charting the terrain of data points, navigating through the cosmos of scatter plots and regression analyses. It's a bit like using a telescope to gaze at the stars, only instead, we're peering into spreadsheets and statistical software. And yes, on occasion, we also find ourselves lost in a "black hole" of data entry errors.
As our cosmic odyssey unfolds, we endeavor to shed light on the overarching question: does the trajectory of NASA's budget allocation bear atmospheric imprints, leaving us to ponder whether the pursuit of space exploration is interwoven with the struggles of environmental stewardship on our own planet? It's almost as if the budgets are orbiting in a cosmic waltz, with air pollution serving as the unseen partner guiding their steps. We're not just crunching numbers – we're waltzing through the statistical universe, seeking to decode the terrestrial-astrological duet.
In this study, we aim to not only unravel the enigmatic association between air pollution in Dallas and the share of NASA's budget within the federal budget but also to invite a broader conversation about the cosmic choreography of policy decisions. After all, as researchers, we should always remember that data analysis is not just about reaching for the stars – it's also about grounding our findings in the tangible realities of everyday life. Let's venture forth with a twinkle in our eyes and a hypothesis in our hearts, as we embark on this scientific escapade that lies at the intersection of earthly air and the cosmic budget.
[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data unearthed an intriguing connection between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Our statistical investigation revealed a positive correlation coefficient of 0.6908696, suggesting a moderately strong linear relationship between the two variables. The r-squared value of 0.4773009 further corroborates the notion that approximately 47.73% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by changes in air pollution levels in Dallas. It seems that as the air pollution in Dallas goes up, so does NASA's piece of the budgetary pie. Talk about pollution pushing us to reach for the stars!
The resultant scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates this astronomical association, portraying a clear ascending trend that defies traditional earthly boundaries. The scatterplot is reminiscent of a starry night sky, with each data point twinkling like a cosmic anomaly waiting to be discovered. It's almost as if the budgetary decisions are propelled into the stratosphere by the polluted winds of change. One might even say that Dallas air pollution is the "jet fuel" for NASA's budgetary trajectory.
The p-value of less than 0.01 underlines the statistical significance of our findings, reinforcing the robustness of the observed relationship. This suggests that the likelihood of the correlation occurring by mere chance is lower than the probability of finding a four-leaf clover in an astronaut's helmet. In other words, the association between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget allocation is about as probable as a rocket launching on St. Patrick's Day.
Overall, our results provide compelling evidence of a noteworthy link between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the larger federal financial framework. While the precise mechanisms underlying this association remain shrouded in cosmic mystery, our findings beckon researchers and policymakers to consider the interplanetary implications of earthly environmental challenges. It's a reminder that even amidst the vastness of space, our planet's struggles and triumphs leave an indelible mark on the celestial sphere, shaping the trajectories of budgetary decisions and cosmic exploration alike. As we marvel at this cosmic dance of variables, it becomes abundantly clear that in the universe of statistics, the sky is not the limit – it's just the beginning of our limitless inquiries.
---
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our investigation has unveiled a cosmic correlation between air pollution in Dallas and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The statistically significant link between these seemingly unrelated variables is as intriguing as discovering a planetary system in the vast expanse of the universe. It seems that Dallas air pollution has been silently whispering, "Houston, we have a problem," and influencing the budgetary dance of NASA.
These findings not only highlight the interconnectedness of earthly environmental challenges with celestial funding decisions but also serve as a reminder that the universe indeed operates in mysterious ways. It's like trying to solve the age-old riddle of whether space debris and air pollutants make for a "stellar" combination – pun intended – influencing budget allocations. And it turns out, they do!
With our research, we hope to have sparked curiosity and cosmic contemplation among fellow researchers and policymakers, inspiring them to consider the unforeseen cosmic repercussions of terrestrial phenomena. After all, in the cosmic ballet of statistical analysis, it's essential to remember that even the most unexpected variables can pirouette into significant correlations.
As for the future, we are convinced that no further research is needed in this area. Our results have quite literally reached for the stars and landed among the statistical constellations, leaving behind a trail of laughter and cosmic pondering. It's time to bid adieu to this celestial adventure and turn our telescopes toward the next frontier of statistical exploration – where no puns have gone before.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Cosmic Conundrums
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Planetary Environmental Research and Fiscal Allocation Studies (IPERFAS)
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget with an abstract of The relationship between air pollution in Dallas and the allocation of NASA's budget within the total US Federal Budget has long been a topic of speculation and intrigue. In this study, we set out to uncover the potential link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena, aiming to shed light on their interconnectedness. Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 1980 to 2023. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.6908696 and a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a strong association between air pollution levels in Dallas and the share of the national budget allocated to NASA.
It appears that as the air quality in Dallas deteriorates, the nebulous influence of NASA's budget allocation within the federal budget follows suit, dancing to the tune of pollution particles suspended in the atmosphere. The results of our study suggest that perhaps there is more to the phrase "sky's the limit" than meets the eye – or lung, in this case.
Furthermore, our research team couldn't help but ponder: is this a case of "space dust" settling alongside particulate matter, or is there an unseen force at play, stretching beyond the stratosphere and into the intricacies of budgetary decision-making? We invite the academic community to join us in unraveling this celestial enigma, while keeping one eye on the stars and the other on the air quality index. After all, when it comes to understanding the cosmos and federal expenditures, every breath we take counts.
ChatGPT:
air pollution, Dallas, NASA budget, US Federal Budget, correlation, environmental protection agency, planetary.org, pollution levels, budget allocation, federal expenditures, air quality index
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Air pollution in DallasDetailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Dallas
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget
Source: Planetary.org
See what else correlates with NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.
r2 = 0.4773009 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 47.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Dallas) over the 44 years from 1980 through 2023.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.1E-7. 0.0000002095987287727313700000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.
But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.
Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.69 in 2.1E-5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 4,771,021 random variables You don't actually need 4 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.
p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.
In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.
Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 43 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 43 because we have two variables measured over a period of 44 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.
[ 0.5, 0.82 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
Air pollution in Dallas (Bad air quality days) | 11.7486 | 11.5068 | 10.411 | 15.6164 | 12.5683 | 15.8904 | 11.5068 | 10.411 | 13.6612 | 7.12329 | 7.12329 | 6.30137 | 4.91803 | 4.93151 | 12.0548 | 13.1507 | 7.10383 | 9.0411 | 10.9589 | 10.137 | 9.56284 | 6.57534 | 9.58904 | 8.21918 | 6.28415 | 10.9589 | 7.67123 | 3.0137 | 2.18579 | 3.0137 | 1.36986 | 5.47945 | 3.55191 | 1.36986 | 0.821918 | 1.36986 | 0.273224 | 0 | 2.46575 | 0.273973 | 0.819672 | 1.09589 | 0.821918 | 1.0989 |
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget (Percent of Federal Budget) | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.9 | 0.86 | 0.8 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.6 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.44 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is. - Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves.
Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([11.7486,11.5068,10.411,15.6164,12.5683,15.8904,11.5068,10.411,13.6612,7.12329,7.12329,6.30137,4.91803,4.93151,12.0548,13.1507,7.10383,9.0411,10.9589,10.137,9.56284,6.57534,9.58904,8.21918,6.28415,10.9589,7.67123,3.0137,2.18579,3.0137,1.36986,5.47945,3.55191,1.36986,0.821918,1.36986,0.273224,0,2.46575,0.273973,0.819672,1.09589,0.821918,1.0989,])
array_2 = np.array([0.84,0.82,0.83,0.85,0.83,0.77,0.75,0.76,0.85,0.96,0.99,1.05,1.01,1.01,0.94,0.88,0.89,0.9,0.86,0.8,0.75,0.76,0.72,0.68,0.66,0.63,0.57,0.58,0.6,0.54,0.55,0.49,0.49,0.49,0.49,0.5,0.49,0.47,0.48,0.48,0.35,0.33,0.41,0.44,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Dallas"
array_2_name = "NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Air pollution in Dallas
- Line chart for only NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Houston, We Have a Problem: Air Pollution in Dallas and NASA's Budget as a Percentage of the Total US Federal Budget
Your rating is pure awesomeness!
Correlation ID: 3846 · Black Variable ID: 20509 · Red Variable ID: 1084