OP has a comment under the photo that may be of assistance to your question.

Ski. Hike. Bike. Hockey. Garden. Be outdoors.

It's a really gorgeous state.

It is worth pointing out what exactly the "Index of Economic Freedom" is measuring, however. If you take a look at the methodology you will notice many curious things about it - the index includes many measurements of effective governance that are not directly related to what laws or policies are on the books or what people talk about when they typically talk about "economic freedom" (as in to what degree is the government corrupt and to what degree is the government capable of enforcing the laws and policies it has on the books, or to what degree are economic transactions inhibited not necessarily by any formal restriction on it but by the government's inability to secure said transactions). Furthermore, the methodology even goes so far as to simply take economic outcomes that are more or less universally viewed as good and treat their presence as constituting economic freedom - a very specific example would be inflation, where a weighted average rate of inflation over the past three years is factored in to their measurement of economic freedom, meaning that a hypothetical government that engaged in interventionist practices to temper inflation would score higher on economic freedom in regards to this particular metric than a hypothetical government that refrained from engaging in interventionist practices to curb a relatively higher degree of inflation. The Index of Economic Freedom is not just a measurement of this sort of libertarian notion of economic freedom, but to a large extent is just a measurement of effective governance and even just good economic outcomes (as opposed to laws or policies).

[deleted]

Is that not the point of drinking?

[removed]

What about McAlister's and Penn Station?

Seems like most smaller cities of 10-12,000 or so have one

hell yeah B)

I wonder if they haven't gotten out as much in the last three years for some reason?

[removed]

Are you familiar with the term "rhetorical question"?

I am not American, but I believe that statistics are important and we should pay attention to them.

These is a r of 0.8 for black and Hispanic population as a percentage to homicide rate.

Would you accept that as causal?

I meant 0.1. And I squared the r to get r squared.

Countries with more economic freedom have more economic equality and more wealth

Unless a relationship is absolutely perfect and there's no noise whatsoever, you'll have an r^(2) less than 1. A value of r^(2) less than 1 doesn't mean "no trend." It just means "there's some fraction of the dependent variable that isn't controlled by the independent variable."

Also worth mentioning that the value OP provided is r (probably the Pearson Correlation Coefficient) rather than r^(2) Coefficient of Determination. While certainly, you can look at the graph and see plainly that the r^(2) is less than 1, it's important to distinguish between r and r^(2)

I don't know if I should ignore the reason why someone asked and answered this question

Yeah we all pretty much give up in the summer when we realize that we aren’t going to fit into our bathing suits. Just order me another hot fudge sundae!

Missing hours are sleeping?

The r^2 is less than 0.1, there is no trend to see.

Edit: decimal point.

That is very, very close to random.

An r of 0.31 is an r^2 of 0.096. Having an r^2 less than 0.4 is hard to make an argument you really have anything

I could generate really random data, and more often than not get something like this correlation out of it.

what is there to do in vermont anyways