[removed]

[removed]

For the niche species sure, most people don't know even insect families, let alone binomial, but common names are too fuzzy.

There's too many shared/localised common names, besides knowing the genus gives you some kind of idea of relationships.

WRT the second point, this is my second post to dataisbeautiful, I wasn't aware that could be done.

Brazil is a much larger country and also much more diverse. We have wildly different regions with wildly different histories.

The São Paulo state, for example, has an area comparable to the UK and a HDI of roughly 0.83, which is roughly on par with the other South American countries.

In places that have basically 0 effect on any of their ppl yeh. While the US and UK were at war with Iraq there was a fairly noticable war freeness in the US and UK compared to in Iraq for example.

Though only in a dataset of 1, right? Or is there something I'm missing?

> It looks like having a higher HDI simply allows countries to contribute more money to research - which some of them choose to do and others don't.

It could be even more complicated than that. R&D could lead to higher HDI, but there could be structural problems that prevent both of them from increasing. Governments in now HDI countries may struggle with state capacity to collect taxes/revenue and not be able to subsidize research and are also not able to provide basic rule of law and order for development. There may be problems with corruption and private R&D might not have any returns because other politically connected businesses will steal their innovations with impunity.

I'd be willing to believe that R&D/investments in technology can cause higher development. You can look at the late developing east Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) as a possible example. The problem is that most poorer countries have problems that prevent development or sustained investment in R&D.

> something seems to have seriously murdered the subreddit

That’s one potential interpretation. But from observing it closely, it’s probably more of suicide than a homicide.

The show opted to terminate viewer feeds. Subreddit engagement actually increased when that was announced, as fans protested.

But right when the season began, a moderator arbitrarily started suppressing that protest, attacking and threatening users who did so.

I’d be interested to have OP crunch some data on that period, from before the season. Some data (like how many users were just driven away by the suppression and being made unwelcome by the sub) may be impossible to get.

This is a little misleading. A lot of corporations fund research so they can skewe results in their favor so they pay a lot in the US. Big oil knew about climate change long before it was an issue, but the corporations buried it. Big Tobacco knew cigarettes were unhealthy, they spent a lot of money to bury it. Aaron Swarts did a lot of research on this sort of thing and it eventually cost him his life, which is unfortunate because he is possibly the greatest mind of the 21st century.

It's alphabetical which is clearly the wrong ordering

>Not the HDI number itself but the rate of improvement of it.

That would probably be a more useful piece of information to graph.

Interesting.

Although your headline conclusion may not align with the reality of the situation. Sure, it’s one conclusion that could fit. But others fit too, and fit better with the qualitative parts of the situation.

For example, right before the season started, one moderator arbitrarily decided to not allow critique of the show’s last minute decision to kill off viewer threads.

They went heavy handed, hiding and censoring posts and attacking users. I was falsely accused of being a shill from another social media source, then threatened and sanctioned.

The messages from the angry mod were... disturbing.

Whether the mod liked my opinion or not, my posts got heavy engagement. But with them actively attacking and threatening me, it was an easy decision to not bother helping support them with interesting content contributions. It would be interesting to see data on what other content contributors they’ve driven off.

The mod became an unofficial propaganda organ for the show’s production, suppressing critique while activively promoting the shift to “digital dailies”, a minimal and contrived substitute.

I watched as any posts contrary to the mods militant stance would pop and vanish shortly after. Users would disappear.

So your hypothesis that the show killed off your subreddit might be a little off. The subreddit itself may have a big hand in killing off its own engagement by going to war on their own user community.

I think that the US and Europe have been more at war than most of Latin America during the past century, right?

Well, of course that even a reasonably designated investment in research and development will not have an immediate impact in HDI and will not be the only factor contributing to it. Do you know how long have Brazil been investing this much? Or how reasonable this expenditure is? If any, from this graph, Brazil looks more like an outlier. Similar to China, whose HDI have been actually improving a lot during last decades and this correlates well with its R&D level of investment. Not the HDI number itself but the rate of improvement of it.

It seems like r and d is a luxury that countries spend on after they have solved most of their human development issues. Its much easier to just not spend the money and still benefit from the discovery

You’ve understated it. Engagement was normal until a couple weeks before the season when the show producers revealed they were killing off the feeds, a fundamental part of premise.

Then engagement actually spiked, as followers decried this seemingly self-limiting choice. And the user protests were sensible, given that this same community of social media engagement had helped rescue the show from cancelation a couple times before.

But an odd thing happened a couple days before show began. An unhinged mod decided nobody could question the feeds issue. Except there was no rule change or discussion. They just started hiding and deleting posts, or banning users, as previously mention without an actual published rule.

I very civilly suggested they put this secret enforcement up to a meta discussion, or at least add it to the published rules.

The mod went ballistic. I could hardly believe their response. It started with crazy accusations that I was the owner of some competing social media source. Then it devolved to deranged threats and lies. I was commanded not to question the moderator.

And then despite not having made a public post or disobeying the mod’s unwritten rules, they rage sanctioned me anyway. Had to file a report with Reddit Admin that was finally upheld a couple days ago.

I watched as numerous other posts would pop up, vanish quickly, and the user would just be... gone. Presumably those users are being mass banned by the moderator.

So your theory is probably quite sound... that the subreddit isn’t so much being impacted as they are probably a very large part of sabotaging themselves.

The choice of one moderator to be an unofficial propaganda organ and practice heavy suppression/bullying is playing out fairly predictably. The other moderators are letting it happen because they engage during the US Big Brother season. It illustrates most of the themes of how some people react to having small amounts of power.

Should have displayed the common names, not latin names. And why not just upload the image to reddit instead of using imgur? On mobile I had to open it in imgur, then open it as a separate image before I could read the text.

Well seeing as flying cars may be on the market soon we might not need new or existing roads in 30-50 years if the price and tech get better

Latin names are meaningless for most people, and it would have been more clear as a multi-layer pie-chart.

I don’t like that the Colours are also indicative of the y axis value, you’re basically using two seperate metrics to convey one piece of information. Perhaps if you changed the colour to correspond to the continent, it would be more useful. Or the size as a indicator of population might be nice as well.

I am flabbergasted by Saudi Arabia's HDI. What do they take into account? Memorizing the Quoran? The discrimination against women and minorities?

Anyone have an idea of what else is happening other than those two factors? How does Chile get better results from the same expenditure as Costa Rica or Mexico?

1. I am frustrated by the legend which has proceeds up linearly from low to high, then loops down to very high at the bottom. Edit: nevermind, I’m just confused by the legend being jumbled.

2. As others have stated, the graph doesn’t seem to demonstrate causality. Seems like if you flipped the independent and dependent variables, it might look like a function (ie, highly developed countries facilitate more R&D, versus more R&D facilitates high development)

That being said, history does point to innovations and development being the egg and highly developed nations the chicken. With that historical context in mind, maybe this graph shows raw $$$ amount spent on innovation as of today isn’t the best predictor, as shown by the massive column of low-high developed nations which seem to have no correlation with R&D and Development

I can see this is preliminary for now, so my strong recommendation as you're putting together future versions is to show detailed source and biblio information on the image itself. It's essential to making a professional, usable visualization.

Regarding what you have so far, you obviously will have to find some way to indicate or adjust for the obvious skew people will have toward reporting larger mammals. As a basic adjustment to the data (or rather, to the size of colored blocks in your visualization -- keep the numbers the same) you could divide each species by their average body weight. This may actually have to be a power of the weight, or even the log. if you plot for yourself and then fit the reported deaths versus weight, you'll get an idea of what function to try for the adjustment. For anything like insects in which the entire category has only one report, you might consider omitting that block entirely, noting "insufficient data".

This would seem to me to be the most beneficial adjustment to make, but there might be more adjustments or indications to consider in future, such as for nocturnal species. (They would definitely be hit more frequently, and if they're large I'd guess they'd be reported more, and if small I'd guess they'd be reported less.)