1. Nuclear power is as renewable as wind or solar. Saying nuclear fuel is non-renewable is kind of retarded considering just how little of it nuclear power plants use, how long they last and how much power they generate, and how much construction effort it takes to maintain wind and solar for comparatively little and lower quality energy.

  2. First off, that is not at all an ok word to use. Don’t use it. Full stop. Second the difference between nuclear and other processes is that it is currently listed as sustainable not renewable. This comes from the fact that the majority of the Uranium used is coming from mines which are non-renewable. And while there are theories surrounding using seawater as a source of uranium, it has not reached the point of being renewable.

  3. If this question was for me, I encourage you to read the map itself.

  4. Source: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GBIF.org (18 April 2022) GBIF Occurrence Download

  5. I'm noticing a significant number of towns that are right on the state border. Did this look at all towns, even in neighboring states, or only other places within each state?

  6. This looked at the distance to all US cities and towns not just the one's inside of it's respective state.

  7. So you are saying your title is wrong? An "unincorporated village" is not a "city or town".

  8. The definition in Massachusetts may not be the same as the federal government which is where this dataset is pulled from. City/town/village are used throughout the US without a larger oversight. So no, I stand by this title.

  9. Kind of curious as to why Solar isn't even on the board. Thousands upon thousands of acres in southern California, New Mexico, but no mention of that on your map?

  10. Solar is growing but it's not the most produced form of electricity in any state. When you also consider that the other forms of electricity work 24/7 while solar can only operate ~12-14 hours, that makes a bit of sense.

  11. Care to elaborate? I'm always looking for constructive feedback!

  12. As a louisianaian, I am personally offended that they called St. Tammany a county. We are a parish, thank you very much

  13. OP, nice concept, but I'd have framed this the other way around: "Which state is dominated by a single burger chain?" or "Which state has the least burger freedom of choice?"

  14. I completely agree with you. This was one of those cases where I leaned harder on the data of this because It's been a point of contention for some in the past. But there are future maps I'm planning on making that'll be framed better than this

  15. Sources: Technomic, Restaurant Location Data from Official Websites Collected and Organized by mahoney vis the POI Factory

  16. Hey op! Any chance you'll share the results on this?

  17. Yes I will be! I've been backed up on projects but that one will be out today so results will be out soon!

  18. No sources? Average of what? Your personal collection? What difference do arbitrary political borders make in paleontology?

  19. Ok let's work through this one. So the sources for this are listed on the map and on this subreddit. The Paleobiology Database (the source for this data) provides data on all publicly available published fossil findings which is most of them. The average is also labeled on the map which leads me to wonder if there were things missed on this map.

  20. Wiki? Meaningless beyond each individual state's borders yet by its very nature the map implies some significance. It is merely a list, should have stayed a spreadsheet.

  21. I take it you're now asking why Wikipedia is sourced. It was used to define geologic time scales as a standard to ensure the best results possible. So it was cited.

  22. In most cases, the missing persons cases are opened by the place where they were last reported as seen since the investigation is usually started there. This changes in the case of a federal crime report and the process gets more complicated.

  23. Great job, just minor nitpick, the DC/MD area is wonky, where the DC number looks like it is over MD, the MD number looks like it's on a line that points to DC, and DC is again called out in a seperate box.

  24. The software I use can be really finicky about this sort of thing and it's a constant battle. Basically, those lines (callouts) are linked to the center of the shape that is each state which happens to be where DC is. So I place DC in it's own box to attempt to differentiate but it doesn't always work. Regardless, thank you for the feedback!

  25. I'm confused. Which way is better air quality? Serious question. I've always taken higher aqi to be better, but you have larger negative changes in blue, which I associate with improvement when contrasted with red. I'd think some course that align with worse in brown for smog and blue or white or green for better. Perhaps a tricolour gradient from brown through white at zero to green for healthier might be nice. But you need to tell viewers which way is better.

  26. On the map there's a label that states that higher AQI is worse air quality conditions. The higher the number, the more pollutants there are in the air. Your assumptions based on color were correct and it was what I was trying to get at. Hopefully that cleared things up but if not let me know.

  27. CA is interesting. One of the lowest increases and I remember seeing those pics and films on LA smog in the 80's. Proof that the enviro friendly changes they made worked. Not to mention they battled huge pop growth

  28. The thing to consider here is wildfires. Even with cities like LA reducing smog and becoming cleaner, wildfires due to climate change are increasing. Those wildfires create some of the worst air conditions possible and thus drive the AQI score higher.

  29. There needs to be a control for the county size difference if we stick to aggregate consumption totals.

  30. So when it came to this question of standardization I was left at an impasse. For irrigation, data was provided for the amount of acres that water supply was used on. For every other category, that was non-existent. I then considered standardizing on area, but that metric also doesn't make much sense. If I had access to the amount of industries or users of the water was available, that's the metric I would standardize on. But I would also argue that a map based purely on totals also presents it's own sorts of facts and points of interest and that's mainly what I strive for when I create these maps. If someone can leave learning something more than when they arrived, I'm happy.

  31. Hey Malcolm, love this map. Particularly where you can see that Penn State uses so much more water than the rest of PA. Any chance you've further considered my position as crew lead?

  32. Seems like this is either missing key context or inputs but either way it appears that there are enough holes as pointed out in the comments that this is not "beautiful".

  33. North Dakota only has one. Fort Ransom State Park. Where is this supposed 2nd one?

  34. Yep. That is the only one.

  35. There is one more unnamed waterfall almost smack in the middle of the state. My guess is that its a seasonal waterfalls or only exist in extreme rain years.

  36. Not sarcastic at all. I read these comments and take everything that’s said to heart so that I improve. I left a smile because who doesn’t like smiling?

  37. Accountability. If I erase it, I act like it never happened. But by keeping it, I can see where I’ve come from and make the improvements

  38. I'm curious, are reservation populations counted towards the diversity index of the state they are in on this map?

  39. Yes they are. For Census purposes, reservation populations are considered within the state. Of course, there's a lot more nuance that goes along with it but that's the nature of the current system.

  40. Great explanation of the methodology and thanks for sharing!

  41. What you've pointed out is the exact reason I'm excited for the 2020 Census. Supposedly we'll have a much better breakdown of race which aligns closer to the idea of ethnicity. When that data is available, this map will be updated so stay tuned!

  42. So let's clear something up. Those animals that are on the preserve are still wild animals. They live in a certain area for their protection but they don't rely on human care in order to survive. Countless species are being reintroduced to areas to stabilize their ecosystems and they are considered to be wild. An animal living on a preserve is far different from an animal living in a zoo.

  43. Wow. This is a first. Being hit with a "Yo Mama" joke on a data visualization. We're truly living in the future.

  44. What am I supposed to do with this information

  45. Would be interesting to see the correlation between tallest roller coaster height and GDP per country

  46. I'd say it likely has a lot to do with GDP seeing as theme/amusement parks are luxuries and countries with lower GDP can't necessarily afford a larger rollercoaster. That said, some of the countries listed simply bought an older coaster and relocated it for cheap which is becoming more prevalent in recent years.

  47. Do you think your data was significantly affected by iNat super-users or specialist users? As in users that make more observations than are usually made by everyone in an entire state so might catch more in their home state? Or difficult to identify taxa that can only reach research grade when observations are made or confirmed by experts in that taxa who have biases toward their home states?

  48. I think a case could be made to that effect. iNaturalist does have a strict protocol for reviewing and identifying species so if you happen to be a wildlife biologist/ ecologist, your data is more likely to be recognized as research grade. Plus since it's seeing increased use in many college programs, certain smaller areas have much higher detail than others resulting in some spatial disparities. I did try to correct for this by looking only at the species level and not the subspecies level, but there is always still a chance of possible bias as there is with any user generated observational data source. Hopefully that answered things, and thank you for the thoughtfulquestion!

  49. Thanks for engaging. I don't understand. Why are state boundaries more meaningful ecologically than density by region? And if you're just counting species then what is so computationally demanding? It sounds like you're doing something more to get your counts but what is that then?

  50. So the data that comes in from iNaturalist is listed as an encounter which takes into account the location, date/time, weather, and a lot of other data. There are millions if not billions of these entries in the US alone. Thats terabytes of data that has to be processed and checked which my computer can't handle. On top of that, not all of the data is perfect. For example, due to their protected status, many of the entires have their location data hidden to reduce the likelihood of trapping and poaching so simply running the coordinates through GIS isn't easier either. I tried to create the best picture possible at a level where I knew the data couldn't be skewed. And that level was on a state my state basis. In theory, you could try and break it up into larger super-regions but then you get into the weeds of what areas are considered what and where the boundaries get drawn. I hope that all made sense.

  51. Is there a source for this? I’m a little suspect of some of the info. Namely, some of these places are actual towns, while others are just a spot on the map (I’m looking at you, Peter Sinks!). If we’re taking the temperature of any place on the map, wouldn’t several mountain tops out west hold the record? (As Mt. Washington in NH does?)

  52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes#References

  53. I imagine it feels as cold as an extra strength Altoid does hitting your tongue

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News Reporter