I don't know how much of an effect this has on the data(is this indigenous species only), but there is something that might be slightly misleading about the Texas data. Due to the proliferation of non-indigenous species hunting in Texas, you can find species that, while on the world endangered list, are actually thriving there due to farming(for hunting). One example that I know of firsthand is Oryx dammah. While this species is IUCN EW, they are being bred very successfully in Texas. So while I'm sure it counts as an endangered species in Texas, it isn't because they are being forced into extinction there. I'm guessing they are not unique in that scenario. Anyway, just thought I'd toss that in for discussion.

More people = more endangered species.

[removed]

There are a few (pupfish, golden trout), but CA has much lower freshwater fish diversity, because the water is mostly either cold or ephemeral. CA has a ton of small-range plants compared to the rest of the continental US and I believe it’s at or near the top in rare mammals.

Its funny how this almost corelated directly with human population

🤔😯 Wait! But California is soooo Green in Politics‼️😥😡👿

I think it fits perfectly. There are two men equally spending for a gun. To muddy the waters with a statistic like price per gun per income is misleading. Military spending per GDP is equally as misleading and it is misleading on purpose to justify outrageous budgets in the U.S.

So are the low numbers better or an indicator they have just made many of them extinct already?

Same thing that's going on with California, Texas and Florida. High initial biodiversity leads to a lot of opportunities for things become endangered. Alabama is the most biodiverse state east of the Mississippi baring Florida.

Great job! How do you wrap the text around the map?

Somehow I see two very large states with diverse climates and geographies and two mostly swamp states with vulnerable ecosystems.

2000W? Is it industrial strength? You'd probably get a lot more water if you put the dehumidifier outside, though.

> Portable dehumidifiers typically consume between 30 and 50 watts while whole-home dehumidifiers can use up to 250 watts per hour.

https://www.perchenergy.com/energy-calculators/dehumidifier-electricity-usage-cost-to-run

I also found this:

> On average, a home dehumidifier collects five gallons of water per day.

That's about 19 liters per day inside an already dehumidified home. That comes out to about 315 watts per liter in a relatively low (30-50%) humidity environment. That's not too bad.

I should get a dehumidifier in case of zombie apocalypse.

[removed]

My mind does not think in Kj. But if u tell me something uses as much energy as a 50W lightbulb for 1h. I know what that means.

I do know that 3600Kj equals 1Kwh. So I used that as an intermediate step to do the conversion. It does not have to be a relevant value on the map.

The reason I found the values low. Is that I have a big dehumidifier that uses 2000W. But it does not give me 40L every hour. But OP already explained that these are theoretical minimum values.

You know when Latvia becomes Japan you have trouble

I guess i don't know what you're trying to achieve.

Pick a number between 1 and 280 and it's on the chart somewhere, no math required. 50kJ/kG is on there somewhere, so is 83.4kJ/kG since it seems to be a continuous scale. 280kJ/kG or so seems to be the maximum for Earth. I'm not sure why 3600kJ/kG entered your mind, or what planet that would apply to.

> aquatic fish

As compared to the more common land-dwelling fish?

3600Kj is 1Kwh. And 1kg is 1L. But the graph shows values from 0Kj/L till 280 Kj/L

Since 3600Kj is not on the chart. Taking a value that I can easily divide, being 180Kj/L. Would give me 1/20th of that 1Kwh. Or 50Wh/L

The map has values higher and lower, but 180Kj/L looked like a reasonable middle ground to calculate. Taking 1,5x our 180Kj/L would give 270Kj/L, or almost the top values. And is still only 1,5x 50Wh/L or 75Wh/L.

Very true. It's probably impossible to ever know for sure the true level of actual corruption. What might be easier to find is what proportion of the budget actually made it through to nee hardware or training, although I'm sure there's plenty of creative accounting that can be done to disappear a couple of billion pretty easily.

It’d be great if there were some good way to measure corruption and put it into the graph. But I suspect that’d be hard. It might also be divisive - if a US senator holds up a defense appropriations bill until some spending for their district is added, is that corruption? I suspect you can find conflicting, earnest, legitimate answers to that question.

That sounds incredibly complicated (like, literally a sizable fraction of the complexity of all US foreign policy), and really divisive (I.e. would all NATO countries count? Would Ukraine? India? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Taiwan?). You can make really good arguments that the answer for any of those is “yes” or “no”. For that reason, I think such an illustration would be difficult to construct, and impossible to treat as data without an agenda.

How are you going from 1kWh/L to 50Wh/L? You aren't reducing the amount of water harvested, you're just reducing the power for some reason. 50Wh would be 1/20L with a direct conversion.

Am i missing something?

Believe it or not, the US has a military presence outside of it’s immediate geographic neighbors. It also projects force even further than that.

I don’t think Mexico and Canada are at the top of the list of countries that the US spends it’s military budget worrying about. Perhaps it’s border security budget (but even then, maybe not - airport security).

I feel like the “Rich man, poor man” metaphors don’t go that well to argue against this metric, because the next step is “Do you want to be a rich man without a gun surrounded by poor men with guns?”

🔥My boy, Leroyo, be channeling the flapping tongue right outta my head…