Aside from the incomplete data (Wyoming has many bears, and I'm sure those other 0 states/countries have a few at least), and the questionable classification (what does organizing this by state/country tell you about bear habitats?) this graphic is a mess. Too much information, and poorly organized. You don't know where to look - it has no focus. Classic example of a meaningless data vomit. Keep trying though.

How could you forget WYOMING?!?!

Yellowstone has over 1000 grizzlies alone.

That's not really what that term 'defense' means.

There's no distinct 'offense' budget.

This is weird, you left out the big dogs (bears) in this graphic, Canada and Russia.

I'm pretty sure Norway/Sweden have polar bears

Unfortunately, our editor is a Techie...

Having grown up in largely the Appalachian’s I never even considered bears weren’t a constant presence in the whole country. 😂 I’m actually surprised about some of those center states not having bears, though, but I guess it makes sense. The Great Plains.

An extremely important part though.

Some reports say this is still the case for North Korea.

edit: source for the doubters:

>That accounts for 13.4 to 23.3 percent of the country's average GDP of $17 billion during the period.

Its a line indicating 2% of gdp, should've added a label to make it more clear

Military spending, even in the US, is almost an order of magnitude smaller than social security spending. Many western European countries have about 20% GDP spending on social security (including healthcare, public pensions, etc.). The US spends 3% of GDP in defence, most EU countries 1-2%. So defence spending is almost a rounding error here, it can be increased or decreased without almost affecting social security spending.

Well, that is where the players play.

The 0 states with neighbors of 10,000+ are interesting. Like no bears have ventured across the state line?

So, that's what Tattoo was saying....

How I wish I'd been on one of those planes to/from Indiana last January. Go Dawgs!

US and China are both happy to lend them money to buy our weapons.

Alaska has so many bears because it has so few people. Fact.

Can we stop showing geographical data from Europe only including the European Union?

(the data source only shows EU I know)

That's probably one of the difficulties with this sort of comparison. Some things can't be divided neatly into offence or defence. Fighter jets can do both, for example.

There's also the "none of the above" category that can differ wildly from country to country. Does the naval budget include a yacht for the head of state? Does the army double as a police force? Is the military in charge of completely random shit like hydro dams? Sweden is famous for using highways as air force bases. Does that mean they can count highway construction as defence spending?

Plastics are just oil with extra steps, it autofuels itself and produce energy :)

The only problem would be if the stuff got wet and a few days under the sun solves that

the linear fit seems off could be log or sqrt fit better

How much is that target driven by the desire of the US defense industry to sell more stuff?

That industry has a lot of influence on policy, and a policy that increases sales and profit is great for business.

Kinda the Reddit comment equivalent of excitedly telling a great joke, but forgetting parts of it and then having to go back in the joke's time-line, lol.

Gotta fund the religious as well 🤷‍♂️

More so when used in tandem with “forcibly.”