Dataisbeautiful

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/Inyalowda!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the citation, or read the !Sidebar summon below.

^{OC-Bot v2.1.0 | Fork with my code | How I Work}

Raw data collected by CalFire and recorded here. Mapped with ArcGIS.

All Damaged/Destroyed structures (which is basically all of them) have 1-3 photographs of the site.

The data was collected from the wikipedia module for python, graphed with matplotlib.

There are approximately 53,000 articles in this dataset, slightly under 1% of the total amount of the total number of English Wikipedia articles (currently 5,751,237).

Each article was retrieved randomly, using wikipedia.random(). The size was calculated from wikipedia.page(args).html().

There are articles where the size is greater than shown, but the amount of them was too small to fit everything on the graph nicely, so I cut it off at 200 Kb.

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/PaulsEggo!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the citation, or read the !Sidebar summon below.

^{OC-Bot v2.1.0 | Fork with my code | How I Work}

I was going to joke that Nunavut is red because it doesn't produce any energy but the stats show that that's true so now I don't know what to joke about

I think PEI is only that high because most of our electricity used here isn't produced here. We get a majority of our electricity from New Brunswick.

For anyone wondering why AB and SK are so much lower than the provinces surrounding them, it's because they don't have any good hydroelectric sites. BC, MB, ON, and QC all have very large rivers and/or mountains, and the vast majority of their power comes from relatively easy to exploit hydro. Flat places are stuck with coal.

This was inspired by /u/Dr_Engineerd's post here. The data was taken from the National Energy Board. The colours were picked from a palette on Color Brewer 2.0. I put this together in Photoshop, based on this SVG render of Canada.

The provincial and territorial statistics are as follows:

The x%+ is because the stats for some types of renewables on the NEB website say <1%. I'm simply basing these off of the pie charts on each province/territory's page.

I agree with "and uranium" in the figures, but I think some people would have a high problem with that.

I have an erection.

No one is talking about NS so I'll say this. NS has no reason to be so low, it's so dam windy here that we could generate all our power from wind no problem and then with the new powerline built from Newfoundland hydro to smooth out demand.

We do have a good number of windmills and driving out of the province to the west there are some huge windmill farms but around every town we have a huge NIMBY problem.

Some investment in off shore windmills, or Cape Breton Island has some of the most sustainable high winds but no where near as many wind mills as we could.

If your a Nova Scotian or Haligoanian take to your local political members about wanted NS Power to install more renewable energy. They last thing NS power did was REMOVE the grant for renewables. And PV solar still DO NOT count for their solar programs.

Sorry for keeping the county down.

Albertan here. Some of us are trying to push into greener sources but most of us are hard to convince to switch over

For those unfamiliar with Canadian province and territory abbreviations. Bottom row, left to right:

• British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia.
  

Top row, left to right:

• Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland & Labrador

edit: see below.

I would love to see a similar map of the regions in my own country (Denmark), so that regions that are behind can pull themselves together, and the green ones can be proud of themselves so they can invest even more in the green evolution.

I mean, B.C.'s just living off hydroelectric, aren't we? It's not like there's some sort of innovative tech going on, is there?

I thought Ontario would be higher. Especially since I was under the assumption that the only nuclear power plants were in Ontario and Quebec.

Idk about that. Southern Alberta is packed with wind turbines. Its gotta be a higher percentage than that.

This is a great example of how just looking at a chart can be misleading. If you had no idea about the population (or lack of) nunavut, you would think they are the sole reason for polluting the earth. Goes to show you can really do whatever you want with data presentation to push your agenda

"by renewables and uranium"

it's funny because contrarian people love to use nuclear while they hide behind oil/gas. But it's the biggest oil/gas producers who don't want nuclear OR solar/wind.

https://imgur.com/gallery/S9wwG

Depends how you define “green”. Dams are incredibly environmentally destructive. Hence the whole BC protests on Site C.

And now I realise that I know just 2 names of Canadian Territories/Probinces. Quebec and Newfoundland.

I wish more people knew about this. I hear a lot of people saying there's no point in getting an electric car because the electricity is generated by fossil fuels, but I live in BC. It's all hydro dams. Having an electric car here makes a ton of sense

Manitoba uses almost exclusively hydro electric power. That's why we're so green. That being said we do drive a lot and it doesn't look like fossil fuels have been taken in to account here.

As an environmental engineer, I'm really stoked to finally see nuclear getting lumped in with green technologies.

Quebec, Ontario, Motherboard, SK gaming, Alabama, British Columbus, YouTube, Northwest Territory, Nibiru, New Balance, Pei, Nice shot, Newfoundland. I love Canada.

Gotta love Hydro power, just spent my summer working on the Keeyask Generating Station in Northern Manitoba on the Nelson river.

It was supposed to be ready for next year, but im pretty sure it wont be ready until 2022 at the earliest. They are behind schedule and way over budget, there is something really fishy going on.

I know times have changed as well as the economy, but the Kettle Generating Station nearby on the same river which is larger, only cost 240 million where as the Keeyask Generating Station is already at 8.7 billion and could go over 10.5 billion in next couple years. Even the Limestone Generating Station, largest in Manitoba and also on the Nelson river, cost only 1.43 billion. Doesn't make much sense to me, Keeyask is also taking longer than the others did.

I think it's strange that it is a 20, 20, 55, and 5 percent increments for the key.

There's debate about whether or not hydroelectricity should actually be considered renewable. Here's an article that goes into the situation a little bit, but it's US focused, so take it as you will.
Beyond the fact that a lot of hydroelectric facilities existed before widespread renewable rollout plans had started taking place, causing it to be excluded from these renewable rollout plans so as not to skew the numbers, hydroelectric facilities can have their own environmental issues.

Here's a study that was done in China that attempted to quantify the methane emissions rising from hydro-reservoirs. When a reservoir is flooded, there's typically a bunch of organic material that is submerged. This matter is then digested, mostly anaerobically, producing methane (a GHG more potent than CO2). Though the equivalent CO2 emissions are still far less than an equivalent, say, coal plant, it's still something to consider.

Furthermore, there's the effect on the river ecosystems in which these facilities are built. Here's a study that looked at the effect of a hydroelectric plant's operation on a Chinook salmon populations in the Columbia River. Long story short, the operation of the dam had an effect on the success of the population, what a surprise. Of course, there's a huge diversity in the kinds of hydroelectric power facilities and some have virtually no effect on fish-life.

On that note, these smaller, run-of-river systems typically don't have a reservoir or if they do, it's a lot smaller. So, the methane emissions are greatly reduced, if not eliminated. Also, the water cycle provides the actual energy that's being collected by hydroelectric facilities. So, the source should keep on keepin' on indefinitely, which some argue is the only constraint needed for something to be considered renewable.

Whatever you end up believing, I think it would be interesting to see this map but only with "new-age" renewables (solar PV, solar thermal power, on and off-shore wind, biofuels, etc.). Such a map might give a better, albeit grimmer, idea of the progress Canada is making on shifting to a renewable energy economy.

​

TL;DR: Show me the numbers excluding hydro and nuclear

This map is very misleading, although it does show electricity usage made by renewables, it does not show total energy consumption.

BC’s energy consumption, for example, is only around 18% made up from electricity.The rest of the energy consumption actually uses energy sources of non-renewables such as oil, coal, or natural gas.Source: http://globe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/globe_endlessenreport.pdf

Manitoba chilling in the middle with basically 100% renewables, being the battery for the surrounding provinces and states

Alberta and Saskatchewan would be able to go green if all you other provinces would stop driving and stop eating beef.

We're the houses that feeds everyone. You're all at the dinner table, complaining about the food and making remarks about how dirty the house is.

In Canada adding Uranium probably makes sense but generally it does depend on whether things are done cheaper than they should be or with unreliable partners, where the material itself comes from and where it is stored afterwards.

Renewables includes hydro which can be anywhere from reasonably clean to extremely dirty depending on details of the power plant, the ecosystem it replaces and it's surroundings. Many of them even produce large amounts of methane through anaerobic mud or use so much concrete that the CO2 emission from making that distributed over the long lifetime of it is still substantial

Not sure how you got the NWT stats but it’s completely wrong around 75% or more of our power is renewable (hydro). In the video link posted it’s a bit dated now but we have way more solar as well. One community is able to run 100% on solar/battery bank system in the summer (diesel in the winter), we also have been given huge funding to push for even more renewable over the next 10 years!

Yellowknife alone is around 50% of our population and they’re on hydro (snare/bluefish)Source:Work in industryhttps://youtu.be/T8eRs4OAAV0

After experiencing “Dark NL” in Newfoundland, I find it very hard to believe those stats. One Bunker C oil power plant could not sustain the Avalon when two of the three turbines were down.

if anyone is interested to learn what is included in Canada's energy mix

I would like to take a second and point out that part of the renewable electricity Quebec is producing from our fucking dam is being sold straight to the states

Small thing.. The abbreviation for the northwest territories is technically just NT as all provinces and territories just use two letters now.

I live in PEI and I really didn't think that 95% of electricity was produced by renewables or uranium here. For the purpose of this data set, what did you consider to be renewable energy?

Such a gap in percentages. 21-41%? Then 41-95%? 95%+? This data mapping is a bit of a joke, and probably made to make Ontario look good as a comfy light green.

Well, if Nova Scotia's provincial government can't pay teachers enough, how will they turn the province green?

I moved to alberta 3 years ago and our recycling program is a joke so im not surprised about them trying to find alternative energy solutions. It would also compete with its already discounted oil industry and would cause other political issues. As far as hyrdo goes maybe dams along the saskatchewan river but idk man that could fuck up more things

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/mantra002!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the citation, or read the !Sidebar summon below.

^{OC-Bot v2.1.0 | Fork with my code | How I Work}

Aircraft identification, position, altitude, and speed data is collected from their ADS-B broadcast, I take this data and plot it using wxPython.

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/SmirkyGraphs!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

Tools used:

python - data prep

tableau - visualization

Source: RI BOE

2018 results by precincts have not been released yet that is why I used 2012/2016.

This visualization compares voter turnout between the 2012 election and 2016 election by Precinct. I choose2012 over 2014 because there is a much larger turnout for presidential elections.

It appears a bit blurry and gets cut short probably because its a bit long, but its as fast as tableau pages goes. If you visit the actual link https://i.imgur.com/UMQXyWU.gif it should be the full thing. If you just want to see the end here is the final image.

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/phil_g!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

DW-NOMINATE is, roughly speaking, a method of quantifying politicians' ideological positions based on their votes in Congress. The researchers who developed it found that two axes were sufficient to classify every in useful ways. The first axis is more or less the liberal-conservative spectrum, from the perspective of greater or lesser government involvement in the economy. The second axis captures regional differences, including opinions on slavery and segregation.

If you graph the liberal-conservative axis over time, you can not only see the orientation of the US's political parties, you can see how they've shifted over time. Notably, the Democratic Party has remained fairly consistent, but starting in 1980 the Republican Party has moved further and further away from, well, everyone else.

I pulled the data from the link above into Python with Pandas and graphed it with Matplotlib. I did a graph of the Senate, too, but the greater membership in the house shows trends better, I think.

So if I’m reading this right, Democrats have shifted a little, Republicans a lot, and the most liberal republicans now are as conservative at the most conservative Republicans during the Regan era?

Super interesting that modern Republicans seem to pretty much align with the Federalists.

When did the Republican/Democrat "Switch" happen?

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/Master4pprentice!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

Description:

The left column shows Sentinel-2 acquisition images over a random area for a span of 1 year, where the missing data corresponds to clouds and such. The right column shows the same data after the process of linear interpolation in the temporal dimension. Handling missing data is an important step in such an application of a machine learning pipeline.

This data was obtained using the python packages eo-learn and sentinelhub-py.

The image was created in Wolfram Mathematica.

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/COLOLFUL_SHEEP!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

For this project I collected every text that my girlfriend and I sent to each other since our first text until her birthday. I used a backup software to get the raw data off of my phone. I created a program in C# (yeah, I know) that would parse the data, filter out other text messages, correct spelling, and add everything to a CSV sheet by word and frequency. I modified that code to parse dates of the texts into a separate document, and include any missing dates. After this, I sorted the data in excel, and brought it into illustrator.

The graphs were generated using Adobe Illustrator's built in bar graph and Pie Chart tools.

I clicked hoping to find some actual words. I figured articles and what not would be filtered out. I’m mean those words would be the most used for anybody. I wanted to see “grandma” or “fishing” or some such.

This is amazing. I really dig the right side that shows the tops words that were used. What program language did you use?

It might be interesting to get an overlay of the most common words in the English language to see how the two of you deviate (or don’t) from them

Fun project and great results!! Gave me the motivation to do the same!I’d guess you coul easily sell this as a service

That's really cool. I'd have filtered out common words like "the" and "if", etc, because they're always going to be the most common words, and don't tell much of a story of what you communicated about over time. I suspect that if I did the same between my wife and I the common word would change from "love" to the name of our daughter after she was born.

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/Doktor_Ectoplasm!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

Dipping my toes into data visualization and analysis.

Source: CSV file accessed through fivethirtyeight's github dataset repository. The actual data was retrieved by fivethirtyeight on November 13,2015 through the Global Terrorism Database.

Tools: Python, using IPython, matplotlib, pandas, and numpy.

I would really enjoy feedback (especially about the design itself)!

I think it's the number of attacks since 1993 not in 1993 or am I wrong? Can't remember 1993 was such a tough year

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/Cubixis!
Here is some important information about this post:

• Author's citations for this thread
• All OC posts by this author

I hope this sticky assists you in having an informed discussion in this thread, or inspires you to remix this data. For more information, please read this Wiki page.

^{OC-Bot v2.04 | Fork with my code | Message the Mods}

Data was scraped fom nfl.com and used D3.js for viz.

https://beta.observablehq.com/@sethpipho/visualizing-football-play-by-play