Posted a link to the source article as per the rules of the sub.

The link is to an archived version so people without an Economist subscription can read it.

Direct link to the image:

https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20180602_USM966.png

Tools: datawrapper, LibreOffice, GIMP

Data sources:

• https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/statemonthly.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population (2020)

This is a reupload to fix the post title.

The OP here. What should I change?

You're right, I've to trade some clarity for brevity. But I think most people understand that I mean.

> Is it disingenuous to call SpaceX a global leader when very few countries really have space agencies

They have the biggest market share in the world in its niche (commercial launches). So, there is no ambiguity here.

> With OpenAI as well - what is the qualification on "global leader"

In the AI community, they're regarded as one of the top labs. Almost no one else, aside from DeepMind, have contributed so much to the AI research.

> The choice to leave off Twitter is pretty telling to me that there is some kind of agenda here

It's quite simple: the fate of Twitter is not settled yet. It could go either way in the coming weeks.

> What the hell is "made it a unicorn"???

"Unicorn startup" is a common term in the business field: a startup that has a valuation of at least $1 bln

They got a multi-billion valuation, which is the definition of a unicorn startup

I have the experience of founding a company, and see no problem with calling someone a founder if he is contributing so much in the yearly years of the company.

But again, who cares? It doesn't change much either way.

As I understand, the consensus is that Musk indeed played a major role in the early founding years of Tesla. Otherwise, the court decision would be against him.

The OP here. How can I improve it?

The diagram is for the period before the twitter drama, as the fate of twitter is not settled yet.

The OP here. How can I improve the diagram?

It seems that he is indeed a founder, at least as per the aforementioned court decision.

But it doesn't matter much. In the diagram, I haven't listed him as a co-founder of Tesla to be on the safe side

As I understand, according to the court decision, he is indeed allowed to call himself a founder. He also has the moral right to do so, as this early in the startup founding, everyone who made major contributions is a de facto co-founder, not only the first few guys who started it.

To be on the safe side, and avoid this controversy altogether, I listed Tesla in the "bought a startup" flow.

Tools: sankeymatic.com , GIMP

Data source: the companies' articles on Wikipedia