Diese in Arbeit befindliche Karte ordnet US-Probleme nach Risk Impact Score (RIS)berechnet als betroffene Bevölkerung × Schwere des Schadens × Unmittelbarkeit × Irreversibilität × systemisches Spillover und nicht anhand der Aufmerksamkeit der Medien.
Das Ziel der Karte: Um zu zeigen, wie der Fokus der Öffentlichkeit nach außen gezogen wird Schichten der Ablenkungvon symbolischen Kontroversen bis hin zu Randthemen, während dringende, schwerwiegende Risiken wie Klimawandel, Erschwinglichkeit und psychische Gesundheit – von denen derzeit die meisten Amerikaner betroffen sind – strukturell nach wie vor unzureichend berücksichtigt werden.
Offen für Feedback, in Miro integriert, KI zur Unterstützung bei RIS eingesetzt. Siehe Miro-Board Hier.
Von tarhodes
11 Kommentare
I don’t love the visual, does not feel intuitive.
Cool idea but this is unreadable on mobile
4/5 „graph“ is useless space with no value added. Very unreadable
Interesting but not beautiful
You have a bunch of numbers being multiplied and say you translate that to pixels, but like how? If it’s a „risk impact“, then why is probability (i.e. risk) not a factor at all?
If it’s „vs which dominate our attention“, where on the visualization is any quantification of how much of our attention is dominated by an issue?
Just offhand on methodology: the threat to Greenland sovereignty ranges in population from 50k in Greenland, to 6 million in Denmark; the immediacy is 1; the systemic spillover in the threat to NATO is, nobody knows. That’s the impact of consequences, but risks includes probability: e.g. of the grandiose geopolitical threats Trump makes, how many are bluster vs how many are followed through. Multiply probability by consequences and you get risk.
Obviously that’s a lot of work, so generally when people plot this kind of thing they cite already published sources that have done such risk assessments already, instead of trying to do such detailed research themselves. Since you’re looking at a relatively small number of issues, it should not be very difficult to find reports that quantify risk for each of these things.
You spent a lot of effort explaining the „RIS“ score, but none of explaining how you scored each parameter. This feels like an extremely subjective graph to me.
It’s a cool idea, but I disagree with some of the analysis. Thought I don’t have any good suggestions to make corrections to help correct where I take issue with due to the difficulty of quantifying it.
I hardly think the Greenland (or anti-nato in general) rhetoric qualifies as a distraction currently. Even if it blows over with no action taken on the part of either the US or NATO, it is still shaking the world order up and reducing both national security in the US as well as global security in general. Weakening the NATO alliance, and likely increasing the standing of both China and Russia on the world stage. It has the possibility of snowballing into open conflict between NATO members, or a complete collapse of the alliance if the US either is forced out or splinters out.
The „immigration enforcement actions“ in places like Minneapolis or Chicago, while they are limited in the scope of their immediate danger to the communities they are taking place in? There is a belief that the administration is ramping up the violence and lawlessness of the enforcement actions to incite violence from the protesters, using that violence as a Casus Belli against their own people. Invoking the Insurrection act, deploying armed troops to US streets, possibly declaring martial law and possibly even using it in an attempt to delay the midterms or keep the president in office past his term limit.
I would say also, that the affordability crisis is probably a larger overall threat in the immediate future to the general population than climate change is. As currently, the immediate effect of climate driven weather is a seasonal threat to those in fire, tornado, hurricane and other severe weather prone areas. Not saying it is not an existential level threat to human civilization, especially in the next couple of decades. While action needed to correct course must be immediate, the affects are going to be ramping up over the next couple of decades.
The affordability crisis is probably going to create some significant affects of increasing homelessness, making it harder for families to feed themselves, pulling nutrition from kids when they need it the most. Lower access to health care, etc…
You have a single axis of data, your RIS.
So why on earth do you have a two dimensional visualization? What does making this circular, instead of linear, add?
While the Greenland circle is accurate as of this afternoon, it wasn’t accurate before that – the tariffs and tariff retaliation would have had real, material impacts on America’s economy and Trump’s admin had been signalling willingness to use the military which would be … bad. Very bad.
Don’t be afraid to throw an upvote for the effort here guys. haha
The only words I can read are „How To Read“.