this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
57 points (74.4% liked)

Data is Beautiful

1165 readers
45 users here now

Be respectful

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zante@lemmy.wtf 102 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Data is fugly. Should be order by the per capita number , unless the intent was to mislead

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Totally. There's really no point in using anything /except/ per capita!

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] leds@feddit.dk 3 points 1 month ago

Well but how many heads do you have? If you have two heads do you eat same amount as 2 persons?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 34 points 1 month ago

Per capita with total as tiebreaker:

Brazil 94kg

Germany 78kg - 17% less than Brazil

China 76kg - 2.6% less than Germany

UK 76kg - 2.6% less than Germany

USA 73kg - 3.9% less than UK/China

France 61kg - 16% less than USA

India 55kg - 10% less than France

Russia 33kg - 40% less than India

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Not necessarily.

This way shows where the biggest impact can be made. If you’re deciding where to spend money to address the issue, your money is better spent in the top four no matter what the per capita numbers are.

[–] pooberbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

Both numbers are valuable, but the visualization is bad. Per capita is very nearly not visualized at all.

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago

That's not true.

It totally depends on the problem and the solution. If there is no economy of scale at force for the solution, it won't make a difference.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It depends how you spend your money but it probably goes further if there's less people. Your money's better spent where the ratio of waste to people is highest.