Tesla has been great.

No. Capital gains tax is very different from ordinary income tax. The greatly reduced capital gains rate IS EXACTLY what is wrong with the American system. If you work for a living, you have to pay income taxes on it all. If you live off daddy’s inheritance, you can sit on your ass and pay less than half the rate!!!!

Individuals should be able to write off expenses, too! My salary is revenue, not income!!! I have 0 income because I spend it all, just like a business tries to report on its tax return.

WOW! Never thought of it that way.

People are brainwashed to see racism and prejudice in absolutely everything these days. It’s exhausting.

To test the premise of the subreddit

[removed]

Huh? I'm responding to BijzondereReiziger by pointing out that there are ~90B of revenue outside of search ads and ad network.

[deleted]

This data is NOT beautiful.

Priority #1 is readability.

[removed]

Google never had the best search imo. Just the most popular and profitable.

Me to

Same...with this caveat:

I still will peek in at Saturday Night Live at times, and Kendrick Lamar and Steve Lacy performed within the past few months. So it is likely I heard their songs - but I couldn’t name those tunes if you played them in front of me.

I can understand not knowing some of these but it takes a special degree of out of touch to have never heard Adele, Taylor Swift, or Beyonce. I mean, I don't go out of my way to hear pretty much any top 40 type popular musician but I guarantee you have heard at least one of them even if you weren't paying attention.

That sounds like exactly what you're doing: Imagining

[removed]

Just some passive income, bro.

Even for showing fraction of a whole, pie charts can be deceptive because humans aren’t all that great at comparing areas of different sectors of a circle. (Although this one isn't exactly a pie because of the empty center.)

But here there’s a more fundamental issue with this chart: Why would you want to focus on what fraction a country represents of the 5-country total? It doesn’t even tell us what fraction they are of the world total, which we might care a bit more about. And it totally obscures whether a country's total nuclear output went up or down. It also doesn’t capture how the countries nuclear power generation changed relative to that country's total power generation.

Two charts that would probably be more interesting/useful:

1. Show 5 lines showing how each countries electrical energy from nuclear plants changed over time. That would still capture relative movement of the countries, while also showing whether their total use of nuclear energy was going up or down. (Plus i could see the whole thing at once, instead of having to wait for the animation😊)
2. Show 5 lines for each countries percentage of electricity from nuclear (out of their total electricity usage) over time. So whereas the first chart shows changes in how much nuclear energy they use (e.g., are they building plants or shutting them down) this second chart shows whether nuclear’s “market share” in the country goes up or down” (e.g. if nuclear is growing slower than other electricity sources in the country, the nuclear is becoming relatively less important to their overall ability to meet their energy needs).

I'm really not trying to beat up on OP here. This sub gets a lot of these questionable visualizations, and they all make the same kinds of misteps. So I'm hoping this advice helps someone.

As a general guideline, one can ask what question about the data does this visualization answer, or what observation about the data does this visualization convey? And you would want that to be a question or observation you think is important or useful and you'd want to choose the visualization that makes that answer or observation clear to the user.

As a second general guideline, ask whether an animation conveys something you wouldn't get more simply from a static image with time as one of the axes - or if the animation just gives you the same information more slowly. If it's the latter, you're better off without it.

Applying those to this chart, I don't think what the visualization shows is more meaningful than what it obscures, and what it shows could have been conveyed more straightforwardly with a static chart.

[removed]

As I said, I think our takes will differ based on what our metrics are.

My metrics include how much agency and stability do their employees feel they have? And how much stability does the larger industry workforce feel they have? How much of employees value addition goes to them versus investors? Does their user base have high trust and use their products enthusiastically? Reluctantly?

But that's the subjectivity. If you look at big tech and judge their success by, "do they make investors money?" then you will likely score a company highly that I think has a lot of room for improvement.

All the Jews left Europe after ww2 for a reason lol
edit: you can downvote me but its true

No chance there is so few jews in Poland

Shitty visualization. Why do people post such crap here?

November is always a shit month for me, too