Take a minute and read the description. The amount of dumb people on Reddit is astounding

Good point, but difficult. There are many imponderables I’ve not taken into account. For example, a big eclipse festival in one area may draw disproportionate number of people. And people in some geographies may be more inclined to drive, say wealth is a factor. You can really go down a rabbit hole, but I kept it simple

>But sometimes it's not worth spending time on something that doesn't bring anything.

That’s not your call, that’s OPs call. If OP thinks it’s fun and looks cool and they enjoy it, then it brings something.

>The static plot would give as much information, but we wouldn't have to wait for the end and pause to actually read the whole plot.

Agreed. But that’s not my point.

>But people are free to do it. Just like we are free to inform these people that it adds nothing.

Never said you aren’t free. I just find it amusing how everyone gets their feathers ruffled and feels the need to tell EVERY OP about it EVERY time. I’m free to make that comment. Now let’s watch the thread get flooded with comments just like yours.

They are scaled to how many people are predicted to converge at the location

[removed]

So, about the animation, I agree that it's not the best answer, it was just the easiest to do before I try my hand at something more substantial.

Small distinction, UBS’ wealth management arm is huge. Their asset management arm is comparatively small. Wealth management and asset management are two separate businesses, with wealth management generally catering towards wealthy individuals whereas asset management caters to institutions like endowments, pension funds etc…

Not watersheds. Roadways showing estimated traffic volume as people travel to see the eclipse. Think of the roads as rivers and the traffic as water.

It's a cool skill, but the graph would be better if it was static. Try to find things that the animation actually helps you understand.

It's just that... what is the point? It's not like it's an original way of animating things. I get that it's more work than not animating, and for that, congrats. But sometimes it's not worth spending time on something that doesn't bring anything.

The static plot would give as much information, but we wouldn't have to wait for the end and pause to actually read the whole plot.

If you want to represent something in 4 of 5 dimensions, I get that animation can be useful, but for 2 dimensions, it's always a waste of time for the reader.

But people are free to do it. Just like we are free to inform these people that it adds nothing.

[removed]

Your mom is the sum of total seeds.

Nice work! Now buckle up and get ready for all the people you offend by animating. Reddit has a boner for yelling at people who animate. Still great work though, keep it up!

I've been yelled at before =D

If you want to go real crazy, you can gather the cloud data for that date over the course of x amount of years and provide a probability of clear skies for a specific region.

For anyone wondering, texas is more likely to have less cloud cover. In addition, Mazatlan Mexico has even less cloud cover. For those vacation lovers.

Thanks! I already had a version of this that looked like a regular bracket but then I saw this blog post: https://richardbrath.wordpress.com/2023/02/27/arcs-vs-beziers-sankey-vs-tubemap/

Yes that's right.

Honestly, don't animate, please.

I'm an idiot who was about to comment how the minimum on the chart should be 16. Actually really good choice of minimum.

I used R (ggplot2 and gganimate) to make this one using data from the OCED from 2005 to 2021.

I'm really proud of what I have learned so far and will be happy to hear your thoughts and your tips.

Right over my house, can't wait

What do the different sun sizes represent? Popularity of the locations for eclipse viewing?

The problem is there is a long and short system. Even in English - but it's not used anymore.

1 milionen x1 000 = 1 milliarden 1 millionen x 1 000 000 1 billonen 1 billonen x 1 000= 1billarden 1 billonen x 1 000 000 = 1 trillionen

Also valid.

And the inclusion of watersheds with predictions of how many people will drive to see the ecplipse?