168 humans killed makes you go from .95 to .75? I don't think this would be the main reason of why Brazil is in that position.

you're welcome

Also 1,5 could be considered a good ratio for research investment, were with good strategies should work as good as more investment

I do not fully agree. Take into account the fiscal pressure, here is the same. Another thing is that basic investigation is a waste of time if you do not have capacity of developing the possible outcomes from it. So, first develop more in what generates employment, and the current research should be only related to what generates employment and not in what generate easy papers (scientific articles). If not you end doing things that in the academic sense is good, but is of not use. You have to growth your GDP with good investment, it mean, good research too and then expand the expenses in research

Do you have a link to that information or you are just repeating what you heard?

I would say the indigenous slaughter holds it back quite a bit

Wait really?

So Mexico spends half as much but is similarly developed to brazil? Talk about efficient

USA got beaten in hdi by the people it nuked, the people who were 200 years behind the rest of the world just ~150 years ago

I almost had a stroke reading it!

Rich countries are able to spend a lot more money on research, this isn't surprising.

[removed]

Swiss train service is a lot better though we can agree on that. Without looking down on the Deutsche Bahn.

I thought this was interesting too. The correlation between political leaning (Using 2020 presidential margin) and SPM is negligible - it basically just looks like a blob on a scatter chart.

That's amazing, thanks! Do you happen to know any good subreddit about stats and whatnot?

Perhaps very high

Ha ha, I think you are right. Weird.

Seems like there is not a lot more to gain after having spent more than 1%.

This is a good example of why I think any visualization of correlation should include the actual Pearson correlation value. I don't think the correlation here is a strong as the title makes it out to be (wouldn't be suprised if < 0.5), even setting aside concerns about whether it is spurious.

Aye. Wealthy countries can spend on r&d and initiatives that improve HDI.

It’s also a great example of development with little to no exportable natural resources. You’re not dependent on climate, or your neighbours. An R&D industry also enables startups, which leads to global companies forming that provide unique solutions you can’t get elsewhere giving you leverage on the world stage. Large companies start opening HQs in your country.

TIL war-torn Iraq has better HDI than India and Morocco.

No, you can have it in datasets of any size. If X causes Y, but also it just happens that in your dataset there's some other factor Z that causes (not Y) and happens to correlate strongly with X (in your dataset). For example, if exposure to some substance causes cancer, but people who are exposed to that substance tend to be exposed to vast quantities of it that kill them immediately (thereby preventing the vast majority of them from living long enough to develop cancer), you'd have a definite causation, but no (or even a reversed) correlation.

The Saarland has a population density of 382. However, regardless of the actual density, every dense region will look completely red. It's just that Germany has no large uninhabited areas whereas the Alps in Switzerland are almost uninhabitable.
TLDR: Switzerland's network is denser, it just has bigger holes

[deleted]