Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

SomethingMoreToSay t1_j2uel7k wrote

This is a really super visualisation. Great work.

I have one quick question about the data, which was inspired by the little maps showing the regional differences. I hope you don't mind me asking because I can't find a clear answer by Googling it.

Are the national average figures weighted by population or by area?

I expect it's probably by area. Unfortunately, since England has about 80% of the UK's population in about 50% of the area, this can lead to situations where the national average picture (as in your line charts) is not consistent with what most people actually experience. The sunshine in July would seem to be an example of this, where the line chart suggests "about average" but the map shows that most people would have experienced "well above average".

1

eric5014 t1_j2u9ogi wrote

No surprise that using more detailed data shows gives you a better picture.

I've often heard people say what one city is like compared to another (within Australia, which is relatively uniform). I have tended to believe that the difference within a large city is FAR more than the difference between them, and statements about their differences probably reflect what areas or circles of people they observed in the different cities.

1

Hailifiknow OP t1_j2u7c79 wrote

Right. It just seems obvious to me. Shouldn’t all studies and reports reflect per capita relativity and not mere national boundaries or landmass? Who does that? I guess you’re saying a lot of studies do. I’m just not sure why McKinsey is stating something so fundamental as illuminating considering it’s readership. The graphs even try to illustrate this in blindingly simply ways. I just wandered if I’m misunderstanding, if they’re creating click-bait, or if most people really do get this wrong and it’s worth clarifying. You’d suggest the latter it sounds like. It’s just interesting.

1

st4n13l t1_j2u4w3g wrote

>So, is it all a hyped way to look into “granular” data? Why is McKinsey focusing on something so obvious?

Obvious? Most reporting on life expectancy is done by country, so while it may be obvious to you, McKinsey is pointing out why it's important to account for variations at the microregion level and not just generalize at the country level.

5

Wop-wops-Wanderer t1_j2u3aro wrote

>Are they doing something to change this?

Absolutely, they've grown their population from 45m in 1998 to 60m in 2023; all while mostly relying on aging infrastructure.

So the change they're making is to make the problem worse.

One only needs to look north across the border into Zimbabwe where they measure their load shedding in days or weeks (as opposed to hours) to see that South Africa's load shedding is at its infancy.

40yr-old Koeberg Nuclear Power Station has the capacity to produce around 5% of the energy needs, where in order to continue operating after 2024, requires around US$1.2 billion in maintenance and upgrades. Its fate is in the hands of corrupt and inept officials.

Now, if you're lucky enough to afford it, you buy solar panels, batteries, generators and fuel. Load-shedding does not affect the lucky few... it follows that said lucky few (including the vast majority of politicians and officials) do not really have skin in the game here, and zero compelling reason to make positive changes.

20