Report an error
Total value of all $100 bills printed correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Total length of Deep Look YouTube videos | r=0.86 | 9yrs | No |
| Points scored by the Los Angeles Chargers | r=0.76 | 6yrs | No |
| Popularity of the 'aint nobody got time for that' meme | r=0.75 | 17yrs | No |
| UFO sightings in Connecticut | r=0.71 | 21yrs | No |
| UFO sightings in Vermont | r=0.69 | 21yrs | No |
| The number of books by Stephen King published | r=0.64 | 14yrs | No |
| International Business Machines' stock price (IBM) | r=0.51 | 21yrs | No |
Total value of all $100 bills printed also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)
