Graph is shitty useless clickbait without proportionality — e.g. If Airbus planes only flew 1/6th the distance as Boeing, they'd be more dangerous than Boeing.
This however is implying that the distance traveled is the metric to measure against, which might skew data. It plays a role, but in aviation, other factors play important rules as well, like starts, landings, touch-and-gos, bad weather conditions flying hours, (as opposed good weather flying hours which relates to distance traveled) and so on. For military aircraft, even more metrics might exist, like contour flying hours, desert flying hours and whatnot.
If (accidents / distance traveled) was the only important metric, the safest means of transport would possibly be space travel.
did they take measures between 2020 and 2024? if not, from a dataviz standpoint, i don't think years 2021, 22, 23 should be included in the x-labels; it makes it look like a clean, linear increase through the years.
What good is getting a diagnosis if you can't pay for the treatment. I'm stuck in this position right now. American health insurance is nothing but a glorified discount plan/coupon book scam.
The more north you go in Florida, the more Southern is becomes. Right there, where Alabama can't go more south and Florida can't go more north? That's prime sister-wife country.
Give me that amount of money and power, combined with almost no repercussion for being a selfish prick to keep that life style, and I too may not be the upstanding citizen I like to think of myself.
I honestly think we would be a lot better off if decisions where made by random citizens - kind of like jury duty, instead of professional politicians.
Not a great viz and also not a clear conclusion. Boeing is the top in North American sales and we are looking at incidents in the US and international waters. So we’re comparing apples and oranges here. And, as you suggest, there’s really no specifics on how many planes are being flown. Even revenue, which isn’t really accounted for, is a bad metric. Are Boeing planes more expensive (eg do they sell more large planes?), do they fly more miles, etc.
I'm confused, WA has no income tax, OR has high income tax... As someone who moved from WA to OR, got a raise, and ended up with smaller paychecks I can attest that this doesn't represent everyone accurately
For anyone not reading between the lines, taxes like sales taxes and property taxes are designed to disproportionately target those with lower income (i.e., regressive), while income tax is mostly supposed to target higher incomes (i.e. progressive).
Uh, the thing about percentages, as in "the top 1%", is that they are proportional. It doesn't matter if one state has fewer billionaires than another state, that's not what the chart is displaying.
If the average income tax of the top 1% isn't 20 times higher than the average tax of any of the 20% groups, then they'll be paying less overall tax. Because there's 20 times more people in the bigger group.
Or it could be showing that those states have unfair tax rules, which is undoubtedly the case for some of them.
This chart is honestly completely meaningless, because there's no way to know which of those two conditions exist.
It's lies, damn lies, and statistics, poured into a rage-bait map.
Edit: However, I would be intrigued to know how the middle 20% managed to pay the least tax in Oregon.
WA has no income tax, but it does have a state level sales tax. Low income people spend a larger portion of their income on purchases which results in a much higher tax rate.
Data is Beautiful
Top