Well not in the eastern township where I live and when I was a kid, by this time of the year there was like 2 feet of snow ... not a trace.

Pretty much all ski resort are closed or partially open in the dead of winter

I think Rhode Island just took this crown from Montana and based on the latest census data from last July:

Rhode Island: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/RI

Montana: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/MT

Rhode Island has about 30,000 fewer people than Montana.

The 2020 census conducted by the Trump administration was very inaccurate and the Biden administration has had to go back and fix the numbers in the new 2022 revisions.

The Rhode Island census was actually egregiously over counted by Trump officials

https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/ri-overcounted-population-in-2020-census-federal-study-finds/

Sure, I agree completely. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the needs of the citizens of a state are disregarded by giving everyone's voice the same weight.

I get what you're saying, but that's the result of how our government is set up, and not inherently a result of giving everyone an equal vote.

It could of course easily be argued that currently the needs of the citizens of the larger states are being disregarded at the preference for the smaller states).

** Edited for clarity

yes but the data I have shows MT with fewer people.

https://old.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/101b8wz/the_us_house_of_representatives_favors_the/

If Rhode Island has less people than Montana and both have two U.S. House reps wouldn’t Rhode Island be the more over-over represented state?

The easiest way to combat this would be to increase the number of representatives in The House. Congress hasn’t increased it from 435 for over 110 years even though the country as a whole has nearly quadrupled in population in the same time.

One way to do this would be to have the number of representatives correspond to the least populous state. Taking the population of the US in 2020 divided by the population of Wyoming in 2020 would give us 575 members. This would lessen the disparity highlighted on this graph.

This would take an act of Congress to do and not even an amendment to The U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately Congress is controlled by power hungry members and this would dilute their power so it won’t get passed anytime soon.

The needs of Texas are different than the need of Vermont. You should not disregard the needs of Vermont just because Texas is larger.

They are using different population data. Montana is most over-represented by about 10k people using the data I have. I actually made that same kind of post 5 days ago.

They compared 1M population vs # of reps, probably because they saw my post. I compared Montana to all other states so the percentages are slightly different.

This posted yesterday seems to suggest that it’s Rhode Island and not Montana that is the most over represented.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/104fd75/oc_the_number_of_representatives_in_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Unless these are completely different things and I’m mistaken.

Worth (stock) and income (flow) are two different categories of measurement. It doesn’t make sense to compare one of those of one entity with the other of those of an entirely different entity. It’s non sequitur.

Your example is more valid as a comparison as net income and revenue are both in the flow category of measurement.

OPs example is like comparing the total incomes of a neighborhood in LA with the total enterprise value of all the McDonald’s in Ecuador. You can put them next to each other in a chart. But doesn’t really make sense.

I get the sentiment of the mapping exercise, however I can't overlook what appears to be a bias in the gradients used in the scale.

Perhaps someone can explain why +20*c scales so very much darker than -20*c. This is not typically what you see when using color gradients to represent values.

[deleted]

I would be willing to help those numbers go up.

Um, what? Maybe in whatever field u work in.

Try that shit in a serious field that is not a degree mill and you will be done immediately

Look at the funding graph, the conservatives came to power and are working hard to destroy it to enable the corporate health provider you have in the US, so this is the result of them trying to move us to your style of private health care.

I doubt many people would be able to afford that shit in the UK, nation is getting poorer thanks to the conservatives who had power for 12 years.

If the banana is in the car they go the same speed.

Ontario too. The system is being intentionally underfunded so that they can break it and bring in a private system.

The point is what is this graph even trying to represent?

Coldest temperature should be represented by the darkest blue considering you have used the darkest red

I'm sure there are multiple factors, but you already mentioned the obvious one. 1990 and 2016 are 26 years apart.. in other words a generation apart. Less babies today because there's less women in their child bearing years today due to the drop in births from the previous generation. Generations echo across time. In the same way that millennials in the US are the largest generation because they echo the baby boom.

Neither did Russia, but they were republics within the USSR. Whether or not Ukraine was independent or not doesn’t change the fact that they recorded demographic information

I can understand why Russia's fell in the early 90s, but why so quickly since 2016?

[removed]

There's snow in Montreal...

Not to state the obvious, but Ukraine (in its modern form) didn't exist until 1991.