Seems like I’m getting 3 reactions to this map:
- Neat map
- I don’t understand this map
- I will find you and kill your family for this crime against data
cannot believe how many people are confused that the use blocks aren’t showing use in that location, just size in relation to the size of the country
Wait what? Oh God that’s a horrible way to lay out data
I found it immediately extremely obvious and intuitive
deleted by creator
I’d say put me under #3, but I’d need you to draw me a map and we all know how that went last time
Sick burn
Because everyone else is shitting on it - I just wanna let you know OP that I actually liked this map
I’d suggest a merger between ‘100 largest landowning families’ and ‘Food we eat’.
This is a weird ass pie chart using the US map as a base right? If I am correct then this is a terrible way to display this data.
Why? It gives people a relatable size and shape to compare to. Like saying the 100 richest landowners own equivalent to Florida.
I get that but it needs to be labeled some way to clarify this at least. A lot of people look at this and could easily think it is what each area has the most of and that the positions of the types of land have something to do with the states they are near or cover.
Agreed. I definitely thought that at first, thinking some of them seemed very off. Glad I read these comments. It’s especially confusing considering where some things are in the map that it seams almost believable for example that NY/NJ are made up mostly of mostly urban and commercial areas.
But it is a good chart (not map) for what it’s intended to show with some perspective provided in proper labeling.
A lot of people sure keep saying “a lot of people” and getting mad at the graph instead of just laughing it off that they didn’t get it at first. It’s not the end of the world if you don’t immediately understand something.
i really do not understand how anyone can be confused by this, obviously it’s not a geographical map because new mexico does not contain the sum total of all american railways…
It’s a fine graph that gives an intuitive sense for how much area is used for each thing.
Yeah and Michigan doesn’t contain all the idle/fallow land in the US but the problem is some people look at this and think that Michigan contains the most idle/fallow land in the US which is why it was used to represent that portion of the data.
I feel like there is a single sentence or phrase that could be written above the or near the graphic which would make it clear but I honestly don’t know what it is.
Why is some people’s inability to use critical thinking anyone else’s problem? Like, don’t make assumptions then. Or, take a beat to understand what’s in front of you. There’s nothing wrong with this graph.
I kind of like it tbh
I like seeing the area.
suburbs take up less place than i expected
I’d like to let you all know that I’m running for Senate in 2024 for the Idle/Fallow areas.
I promise to keep the status quo.
expected more corn
That entire block that says “ethanol” is corn, plus that entire block that says corn syrup, and a good chunk of that block that says “livestock feed”. It’s a lot of corn.
It’s completely missing North Dakota which, when I visited was mostly corn. This is misleading at best.
It is absolutely blowing my mind how many people are looking at this and thinking that is trying to show, like, primary land use per block on the map or something?
Like it’s well-known that maple syrup comes exclusively from northwest PA, plus all the logging that happens in downtown San Francisco and LA.
Every single home is in the northeast
Is this a glorified pie chart? Follow-up question: Why is this not just an actual pie chart?
the idea is to show that X land use consumes an area equivalent to an easily recognizable state-area
Pie charts are useless in general.
For the example shown here there are way too many categories for a pie chart. You would not be able to see anything past the top 3 or so categories as the slices get too thin and the labels would be all over the place.
Lastly you would miss out on the size comparisons to e.g. states.
This is much better.
the added context of the US map gives it some utility that a pie chart, which is just straight trash, does not have
a bar graph or even just a table would convey similar information more precisely and usefully, but if your only goal is to give an intuitive sense of the land use (not writing policy or anything here) it suits
Why isn’t parking on here?
!fuck_cars@lemmy.ml is leaking.
Oh great, the “everyone lives in cities and I have no concept of rural living” people are here now too.
Awww, ya’ll are butthurt and downvoting me for pointing out not everyone has access to mass transportation or reliable shopping within three blocks of their house.
More like “what if people living in cities didn’t have to depend on a car”
“And screw those rural types who need one in the process”
The “80% of the us population” crowd is here. So cringe.
Yeah, cause fuck those of us who don’t live in cities, right?
Rual, as in my lively hood is based on the land I live on/near or “rual” as in a suburb built in the green way, but I still do the rest of my work and living in the city?
Rural as in the nearest town with more than 30,000 people is 90 miles away.
Streets aren’t really mentioned either, besides “Rural highways”. I assume other streets and parking spaces are mostly included in “Urban/Rural housing” and/or “Urban commercial” (smaller rural streets might not be counted seperately from the surrounding land).
That was the first thing I was looking for too.
I was looking for the people shocked 100 Americans basically own Florida, that’s a whole European country there
Until fairly recently, i.e. the last 150 years, only a handful of people owned all of europe too.
Oh no they still do, they just hide it better lol XD
Touché
I have examined this abstraction of a map thoroughly.
I do not see any garbage dumps, recycling facilities, sewage processing, cemeteries, energy production, water production…
I could carry on, but this map means almost nothing with all sorts of factors missing.
Without digging in to the numbers further than just looking at this map, could this be because the relative areas of the factors you listed didn’t pass a threshold to make it? @ezmack what data source was used for this?
California also uses their lands for wildfires, they even have a fire season now. Don’t forget to give credit where credit is due!
“Food we eat” is half the size of “livestock feed”. Plus look at how small wetlands/deserts are, wetlands especially are essential to climate resillience. What egregiously bad land use, wow. Thanks for this post, it’s great.
It takes 76% less land for us to just eat plants, rather than to grow them to feed to animals that we then in turn eat. Really amazing how inefficient it is.
the amount of land for cows is crazy. and the fact that more land goes to livestock feed than food we eat is interesting as well
The conversion losses to feed animals is very high. It takes 76% less land for us to subsist on plants rather than to eat meat. Well, actually, that’s the world average, it might be even higher in the US because of its higher meat consumption. I should check the study again.
But I feel like land for cows is akin to food we eat because we eat a lot of those cows also.
deleted by creator
Anytime
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot “food we eat”?
Field corn and soybeans are STRICTLY for animal (specifically cow, pig sheep and chicken) consumption. Food we eat is from California.
