If you click through to OP's source link you'll see it scaled by average income per capita in the city, which is similar to what you're asking.

https://app.openaxis.com/data/5076

It moves SF from #2 to #10.

I looked at both sources briefly, both are municipal (not personal debt).

However, the data Forbes links to is a much broader measure of municipal debt and the one OP is narrower.

For NYC OP's source is 86B in debt from the city's annual report, and Forbes/Truth in Accounting is 256B. The major difference seems to be the inclusion of unfunded pension and health insurance benefits to city employees.

The use of denominator will also matter for the levels (fewer taxpayers than population), but shouldn't affect the ordering of cities as much as what's included in "debt."

You're probably right about Ireland and Malta, but Norwegians are not the reason Sweden is on top, they amount to at most 1% of the Swedish population. Sweden genuinely has taken in a ton of refugees and economic migrants from the Middle East/Asia/Africa/Balkans.

Unfortunately they don't have AQI (but do have PM2.5, NO2 and others), but I find Windy.com to be actually beautiful data:

https://www.windy.com/-Show---add-more-layers/overlays?cams,pm2p5,25.625,-18.243,3

And you can see how important wind is in moving pollution.

It's so weird to do this with the sticker price of college, and to combine in- and out- of state. Sticker price the max you pay in tuition, and families where people are earning minimum wage usually get huge discounts on the price. The UC system in California says about 55% of students pay no tuition at all. The statement used as the title is not supported by this analysis.

I think there's good data out there on average cost of attending schools (tuition and living costs net of grants and student aid).