[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I almost passed out from the number of jokes that rushed into my head when I saw Alaska was #1.
 
Last edited:
The graph seems to be only based on Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, not on the other diseases (HIV, syphillis, rest I think not relevant).

I almost passed out from the number of jokes that rushed into head when I saw Alaska was #1.

mmhh... I can only think of "they have nothing else to do there", and that is probably closer to reality than to a joke.
 
...
 
Last edited:
I almost passed out from the number of jokes that rushed into my head when I saw Alaska was #1.

Must be the cold
See the top list for Europe:

Schermopname (1040).png


https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/std-us-eu/
 
Presumably because they're such a small and insular country in essentially one city, things get around a lot.
 
Who would have thought that STD rates would be higher in states without real sex Ed?
Utah suggests that religion just has not enough influence. :smug:

Also that map literally states "Alaska is the worst"? I like fact-maps expressing themselves like sub-urban drama moms.
Presumably because they're such a small and insular country in essentially one city, things get around a lot.
I am still wrapping my head around that one. Shouldn't STD just scale with the population? Even if you are just one city?
I suspect this is less about size as such and more about cities vs rural.
edit: Ah now I am on to it. It is a city-country, with a very save city (people trust each other) AND you are a lot more likely to meet people you know... Something like that.
 
Last edited:
So, total back of the envelope.

At the end of Clinton's term, the year 2000, the US federal government's debt was about 20.5 billion ounces of gold. After Bush's term, in 2008, it was about 11.5 billion ounces. After Obama, it was 11 billion ounces.

Not bad!
 
I mean that's because of the inflation of the cost of gold exceeding the inflation of the dollar, right?
well yes of course, it's just funny when it's worded that way. Gold was under $300 an ounce in 2000, today it's over $1300 after having peaked around $1800 in 2011.
 
I mean that's because of the inflation of the cost of gold exceeding the inflation of the dollar, right?


The price of gold is mostly speculative. And has nothing really to do with the prices of other things. That's what makes gold suck as money.
 
So, total back of the envelope.

At the end of Clinton's term, the year 2000, the US federal government's debt was about 20.5 billion ounces of gold. After Bush's term, in 2008, it was about 11.5 billion ounces. After Obama, it was 11 billion ounces.

Not bad!
Too bad there are only 6 billion in the entire world :p (over ground)
(according to Thomson Reuters GFMS, who seem to be the main point of reference, but there are admittedly other widely diverging estimates, and some of those got you covered)
 

yeah... it feels kind of bad and kind of inevitable at the same time.

good article BTW, to the point
It's happening in Europe as well, except for that slower rate of new companies starting in the US.
But even starting companies will prefer to be close or in clusters, because of a better supply chain and better economy of scale of that chain.
The only "natural" economic factor countering that is labor cost (not the pool of labor skills: that is still strenghtening the clustering)
 
yeah... it feels kind of bad and kind of inevitable at the same time.

good article BTW, to the point
It's happening in Europe as well, except for that slower rate of new companies starting in the US.
But even starting companies will prefer to be close or in clusters, because of a better supply chain and better economy of scale of that chain.
The only "natural" economic factor countering that is labor cost (not the pool of labor skills: that is still strenghtening the clustering)


To a fair extent it is inevitable. Cities just make more sense for modern economic activity. But what's left out is that there are still ways to assist many of those communities. Or, at least the people in them. And help many of them gain more skills and relocate to where the jobs are.
 

Seems made-up, at least for Greece. People don't think democracy here is running in near-optimal levels, (70%? ...), and neither do they want 'non elected experts' running it. It is too vague, as well. Remember that recently we had a forced such gov (Papademos, who did harm as well). 1% for 'politicians run things well' is also farcical, despite a huge majority being (rightly) of the view they don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom