How is it missing part of the journey if they literally are the beginning of the journey?? 😭😭 Ay. I'm going to bed. This is too much.

When you look at the importance of coffee in Yemeni vs Ethiopian culture, it's also just anecdotally obvious where it originated & has been drunken long before the Wikipedia article can document vs who received it and traded it. Go to an Ethiopian person's house and you'll be there for two hours whole someone brews you coffee from the green bean in a traditional clay pot. It's a whole thing.

It didn't...even the Wikipedia page linked describes the fact that local ethnic groups in Ethiopia knew it was stimulant and how Somali traders brought it to Yemen...you have to have a plant (&know it's value and use) to bring it elsewhere & trade.

Why leave out the fact they came from Ethiopia? Yemen was just the first to trade it internationally (although even here, was it Yemeni traders or traders in Yemen?), but they got the coffee from Ethiopia...

This isn't even a case of the data being terrible, it's just misleading and not representative of what the source outlined. You should also include years. Visualization itself is nice though.

Of all your graphics, not sure what the point of this one is. 😂 The others have a more of a narrative component to them (crime reduction, for instance). Is there something noteworthy about producing cherries? Chile is the top copper producer in the world.

What I am seeing here is that Washingtonian Bigfoot goes on vacation to California a lot, but occasionally gets around.

It would be better as a bar chart and you could have used the bar colors to indicate if the character was male or female. It's not presented in the best way like this.

Based on the comments, no. And I am looking at this chart and wondering how? The flow removes a layer of information. Look, if you like Elon, that's fine, but if you don't care about actually creating a nice chart then why are you here? It doesn't help your point and it's just bizarre. You can reply to this comment if you wish, but I don't know what a back and forth is gonna do at this point if you're resistant to any commentary that isn't agreement with what I will now just say is a flawed chart that tells people nothing except that you like Elon Musk a lot.

>They have the biggest market share in the world in its niche (commercial launches). So, there is no ambiguity here.

Being a world leader implies some level of position and power. If you're in a niche field, you really aren't a world leader. You're just the only one doing it. I don't think there are a lot of SpaceX type companies that will pop up in the near future. This is the issue with using vague terms because we can go back and forth on this.

>In the AI community, they're regarded as one of the top labs. Almost no one else, aside from DeepMind, have contributed so much to the AI research.

OpenAi was founded in 2015. So my mind immediately said this is likely not a true statement. And a Google search says it's not really true - they, along with DeepMind and FAIR, just get a lot more press. 1,2

"DeepMind, OpenAI and FAIR were probably the top three pure AI research labs in terms of known funding, while IBM pushes out more patents.” (3)

I just clicked the first three links when Googling "leading AI researching labs." I don't doubt they are good at what they do, but there have been people with their towel in the race for a decade, so your claim seemed dubious enough to investigate. Again, the issue is the term "world leader." There are also Chinese tech companies mentioned in the same article as the quote and these lists are very Western-centric from my POV. This is a niche field, so all you would need to do is expand "global leader" to top thirty. You will not only capture all of them, but OpenAI would likely rank then and the statement has some merit as a technicality. But just because it's one of the only two you know, doesn't mean it's the world leader.

>The choice to leave off Twitter is pretty telling to me that there is some kind of agenda here

This circles back to what this chart is trying to say. You can include footnotes in charts. Also SolarCity doesn't have a "fate" associated with it -- why does "fate" matter? Why not say he "acquired it" - a neutral, factual statement? Or that it hasn't generated a profit - also a factual statement? You could have presented it.

>"Unicorn startup" is a common term in the business field: a startup that has a valuation of at least $1 bln

Your assumed audience is not business people though and even if it were, it sounds like English-speaking slang rather than professional business language that doesn't belong in a presentation. Use Plain Language and avoid jargon.

I played around with their Marv the sarcastic robot thing and I think they have a lot of work to do before they put this into the real world. I'd prefer to talk to a real human over a machine any day until we reach uncanny levels.

Then OP needs to use common language. You don't use undefined jargon in data presentations, unless your audience is thought to know it as well.

No, you cannot say that with a vague definition. What's to stop me from saying "I'm a global leader in pharmacy, even if that criteria is a bit vague I don’t really see a way you can argue that"? If you make a claim, you need to back it up.

I am a fan of OpenAI for fun with their text generator. It's machine learning or something, people can use it for a variety of things. I am not sure it's real-world utility, honestly, but others might.

I am not sure where to begin. "Almost failed" is vague with no well-accepted understanding. It's not the same as, say, "rejected" (since we see Sankey graphs here for job searches and budgets primarily) which has a clear meaning. Same with "global leader" - is this top 15 automakers? Top 100? Just sells cars around the world? Is it disingenuous to call SpaceX a global leader when very few countries really have space agencies (77 total, 16 that actually go to space)? With OpenAI as well - what is the qualification on "global leader"? Who competes with it? It's like calling the NFL champions this year "global leaders in American football".

What the hell is "made it a unicorn"???

Is the "bought a start-up" and "acquired by his company" the same thing? Which did he "help to create", "cofound" and "bought as a start up" -- SpaceX, SolarCity, or Tesla? This flow is unclear to me, but it could be me. It feels like this information is lost. I think you should have had the end output be the current statuses, not the companies themselves and the companies themselves should have been in the flow since several have the same end.

"Sold for $$$" is a redundant label. What else would he have sold it for? Peanuts? I suggest changing it to 'profit' if you mean he sold it for a profit. Otherwise, see below with * about changing the graph's title to reflect what you're trying to show here.

You have cofounded on here twice as well as global leader. As someone corrected me before, there should only be one of each category and these categories then flow to the correct end-point, even if they have to cross each other. Also why wouldn't Neuralink be up with Tesla and SpaceX in the final output when they have similar paths except for the commercial and research lab aspect? This is confusing.

By having a "still operates it", it implies that he doesn't operate the others that are not under this final output. Is this the case?

This is hard to follow and this type of graph isn't the best way to display this data. This feels more like opinion telling us the track record as there's no actual data here. The choice to leave off Twitter is pretty telling to me that there is some kind of agenda here. It would likely, if you were trying to be objective, have been categorized near the "the Boring Company" as not having generated profit, but you included that weird "made it a unicorn" label. You could still have created another label but you did not. *Calling this the business track record is not accurate -- this chart, at the very least, just shows companies Elon Musk is involved in, how he got involved, and his current role in them (e.g., still operates it, sold it, acquired it, left it). It says nothing about the business status or the strength or health of these companies.

Yeah, I can see where the break is but it was just confusing at first glance to see South India lumped in with the other ones in Orange. That was new info to me, lol. It makes sense but even a darker orange would have worked.

Why are there two Oranges?? Hard to tell them apart, they look the same, if they are different.

I don’t this this is very detailed. Seems like a high level overview. Many of these countries are teeming with linguistic diversity.

I was taught 0.8 and above was strong. I work in laboratory science mainly.

The correlation really isn’t that strong. Worth attention, but something is going on. Is there a list of countries used in this?

Frankly, fertility rate is a product of several things. You’re going to need to include more variables into your model (rurality, level of education, access to family planning services, for starters).

Right? I doubt the Pew data for the worship numbers is even accurate, too, but even if we take it as if it is, 0.6 isn’t convincing.

It’s always going to be a function of mother’s education and mode of income generation (agriculture, for instance).

I’d suspect you wouldn’t find a correlation because contraceptive access is probably similar across the board in many low income countries. While they probably have the higher fertility rate overall still, access to something says nothing about uptake. In addition years of HIV advocacy by NGOs has pushed condoms as a means of HIV prevention as well, so there are health reasons why people would use condoms that wouldn’t conflict with their religious beliefs — if there is one in these countries that’s preventing contraceptive use. So to even get the contraceptive access data you have to define what access even looks like.

You’d probably find more of a pattern mapping average incomes or rural vs urban or the education of the mothers (this almost always tightly correlated).

I don’t even trust this data since there’s no way these are accurate reports of country wide worship attendance.

Adalynn still gets me. Adamary? Adabelle? Adabella?

Is Ada supposed to be Ara, by chance? These all make more sense as Aralynn, Aramary (ok, not much more sense), Arabelle and Arabella?

This comment is pointless. All the personal posts on Monday are incredibly pointless information for anyone and everyone except the OP. So what is the point? It's just for fun. Someone literally posted about their shits and another on how often they have sex earlier today.

It's interesting to see OP, between 2016 and now, has talked about nearly every state except a handful. I'm confused on how Nevada has never come up but Indiana has.

One post this week is that Latinos in the US are not thriving. This post says they are thriving.

A lovely example in the ways data can be represented to tell whatever story you want. There needs to be stricter rules about documenting methodology in this sub.

There are black Hispanic folk. As well as white and those who consider themselves mixed (indigenous and white mix). I don’t get this comment — the issue with this data is comparing broad racial groups to an ethnic group.

I think I am the only one having trouble reading this.

This also needs to be broken apart by “type.” You are lumping huge amounts of culture under these broad racial and ethnic categories. Fine detail isn’t possible but at least “Black immigrant” and “South Asian” and “White Hispanic” and “Black Hispanic” need to be elucidated. I have a sneaking suspicion that that very broad ETHNIC category of “Hispanic” has RACIAL disparities within it. To me, this data isn’t saying much since it’s not clear who exactly needs the most targeting for educational campaigns. Hispanic isn’t clear. You’re also lumping male and female together as well. This is an example of data is likely correct but not represented in a useful fashion.

ETA: also immigration status would also be something to consider since I see the source is raw census data that you’ve analyzed, i.e., you’ve analyzed 18-44 year olds but when did they arrive in the US, if US-based education is the litmus vs education received anywhere? This is considering Latin American immigrants make up a sizable portion of the immigrant population. It would be useful for all categories to separate between immigrant and US-born tbh.

Lucky, lucky. I don't begrudge you it! Hopefully you can go farther and wider soon.

These numbers were making ZERO sense to me because I thought it was 30k yearly, so my head started to hurt trying to make sense of what was going on.

Read it again and saw it's MONTHLY and my head began to hurt for a whole different reason. 😂 You do 1,000 dollars of traveling a month??