Historical Employment Statistics 1990 - current. The Current Employment Statistics (CES) more information program provides the most current estimates of nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings data by industry (place of work) for the nation as a whole, all states, and most major metropolitan areas. The CES survey is a federal-state cooperative endeavor in which states develop state and sub-state data using concepts, definitions, and technical procedures prescribed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Estimates produced by the CES program include both full- and part-time jobs. Excluded are self-employment, as well as agricultural and domestic positions. In Connecticut, more than 4,000 employers are surveyed each month to determine the number of the jobs in the State. For more information please visit us at http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/ces/default.asp.

Context

Cultural diversity in the U.S. has led to great variations in names and naming traditions and names have been used to express creativity, personality, cultural identity, and values. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_in_the_United_States

Content

This public dataset was created by the Social Security Administration and contains all names from Social Security card applications for births that occurred in the United States after 1879. Note that many people born before 1937 never applied for a Social Security card, so their names are not included in this data. For others who did apply, records may not show the place of birth, and again their names are not included in the data.

All data are from a 100% sample of records on Social Security card applications as of the end of February 2015. To safeguard privacy, the Social Security Administration restricts names to those with at least 5 occurrences.

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:usa_names

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/usa-names

Dataset Source: Data.gov. This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source — http://www.data.gov/privacy-policy#data_policy — and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by @dcp from Unplash.

Inspiration

What are the most common names?

What are the most common female names?

Are there more female or male names?

Female names by a wide margin?

For a quick summary of the case study, please click "US Economy Powerpoint" and download the Powerpoint.

This dataset was inspired by rising prices for essential goods, the abnormally high inflation rate in March of 7.9 percent of this year, and the 30 trillion-dollar debt that we have. I was extremely curious to see how sustainable this is for the average American and if wages are increasing at the same rate to help combat this inflation. This is not politically driven in the slightest nor was this made to put the blame on Americans. This dataset was inspired by rising prices for essential goods and the abnormally high inflation rate in March of 7.9 percent of this year. I was extremely curious to see how sustainable this is for the average American and if wages are increasing at the same rate to help combat this inflation. This is not politically driven in the slightest nor was this made to put the blame on Americans. All of the datasets were obtained from third party sources websites such as https://dqydj.com/household-income-by-year/ and https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ and only excluding https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS, which is first-party data.

This dataset was inspired by rising prices for essential goods and the abnormally high inflation rate in March of 7.9 percent of this year. I was extremely curious to see how sustainable this is for the average American and if wages are increasing at the same rate to help combat this inflation. This is not politically driven in the slightest nor was this made to put the blame on Americans. This dataset was inspired by rising prices for essential goods and the abnormally high inflation rate in March of 7.9 percent of this year. I was extremely curious to see how sustainable this is for the average American and if wages are increasing at the same rate to help combat this inflation. This is not politically driven in the slightest nor was this made to put the blame on Americans. All of the datasets were obtained from third party sources websites such as https://dqydj.com/household-income-by-year/ and https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ and only excluding https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS, which is first-party data.

I labeled all of the datasets to be self-explanatory based off of the title of the datasets. The US Economy Notebook has most of the code that I used as well as the four of the six phases of data analysis. The last two phases are in the US Economy Powerpoint. The "US Historical Inflation Rates" dataset could have also been labeled "The Inflation Of The US Dollar Month By Month". Lastly, the Average Sales of Houses in Jan is just a filtered version of "Average Sales of Houses in the US" dataset.

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 39.7 percent of GDP in 2024 . This dataset provides - United States Government Spending To Gdp- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program (also known as ES-202) collects employment and wage data from employers covered by New York State's Unemployment Insurance (UI) Law. This program is a cooperative program with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. QCEW data encompass approximately 97 percent of New York's nonfarm employment, providing a virtual census of employees and their wages as well as the most complete universe of employment and wage data, by industry, at the State, regional and county levels. "Covered" employment refers broadly to both private-sector employees as well as state, county, and municipal government employees insured under the New York State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Act. Federal employees are insured under separate laws, but are considered covered for the purposes of the program. Employee categories not covered by UI include some agricultural workers, railroad workers, private household workers, student workers, the self-employed, and unpaid family workers. QCEW data are similar to monthly Current Employment Statistics (CES) data in that they reflect jobs by place of work; therefore, if a person holds two jobs, he or she is counted twice. However, since the QCEW program, by definition, only measures employment covered by unemployment insurance laws, its totals will not be the same as CES employment totals due to the employee categories excluded by UI. Industry level data from 1975 to 2000 is reflective of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.

November's Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on medical errors has sparked debate among US health policy makers as to the appropriate response to the problem. Proposals range from the implementation of nationwide mandatory reporting with public release of performance data to voluntary reporting and quality-assurance efforts that protect the confidentiality of error-related data. Any successful safety program will require a national effort to make significant investments in information technology infrastructure, and to provide an environment and education that enables providers to contribute to an active quality-improvement process.

Overview

The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control.

National Geospatial Data Asset

This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.

Dataset Source Details

Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground.

Cartographic Visualization

The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below.

Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html

Contact

Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip

Attribute Structure

The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension

These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE

The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB.

Core Attributes

The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields.

County Code and Country Name Fields

“CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard.

The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user.

Descriptive Fields

The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes

Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line.

ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line

A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively.

The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps.

The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line.

Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization

Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between:

• International Boundaries (Rank 1);
• Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and
• Special Lines (Rank 3).

Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction.

The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling.

Use of

This dataset provides quarterly personal income estimates for State of Iowa produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis . Data includes the following estimates: personal income, per capita personal income, proprietors' income, farm proprietors' income, compensation of employees and private nonfarm earnings, compensation, and wages and salaries for wholesale trade. Personal income, proprietors' income, and farm proprietors' income available beginning 1997; per capita personal income available beginning 2010; and all other data beginning 1998.

Personal income is defined as the sum of wages and salaries, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income, dividends, interest, and rent, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance. Personal income for Iowa is the income received by, or on behalf of all persons residing in Iowa, regardless of the duration of residence, except for foreign nationals employed by their home governments in Iowa. Per capita personal income is personal income divided by the Census Bureau’s midquarter population estimates.

Proprietors' income is the current-production income (including income in kind) of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and tax-exempt cooperatives. Corporate directors' fees are included in proprietors' income. Proprietors' income includes the interest income received by financial partnerships and the net rental real estate income of those partnerships primarily engaged in the real estate business.

Farm proprietors’ income as measured for personal income reflects returns from current production; it does not measure current cash flows. Sales out of inventories are included in current gross farm income, but they are excluded from net farm income because they represent income from a previous year’s production.

Compensation to employees is the total remuneration, both monetary and in kind, payable by employers to employees in return for their work during the period. It consists of wages and salaries and of supplements to wages and salaries. Compensation is presented on an accrual basis - that is, it reflects compensation liabilities incurred by the employer in a given period regardless of when the compensation is actually received by the employee.

Private nonfarm earnings is the sum of wages and salaries, supplements to wages and salaries, and nonfarm proprietors' income, excluding farm and government.

Private nonfarm wages and salaries is wages and salaries excluding farm and government. Wages and salaries is the remuneration receivable by employees (including corporate officers) from employers for the provision of labor services. It includes commissions, tips, and bonuses; employee gains from exercising stock options; and pay-in-kind. Judicial fees paid to jurors and witnesses are classified as wages and salaries. Wages and salaries are measured before deductions, such as social security contributions, union dues, and voluntary employee contributions to defined contribution pension plans.

More terms and definitions are available on https://apps.bea.gov/regional/definitions/.

Quality of Life by State 2024

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F1937611%2F82267b1a15f8669ec2a072972bebccb5%2Fquality-of-life-by-us-state.png?generation=1717697280376438&alt=media" alt="">

This dataset provides insights into the quality of life across different states in the United States for the year 2024. Quality of life, encompassing aspects like comfort, health, and happiness, is evaluated through various metrics including affordability, economy, education, and safety. Dive into this dataset to understand how different states fare in terms of overall quality of life and its individual components.

Columns Description

• State: The name of the U.S. state.
• QualityOfLifeTotalScore: The total score representing the overall quality of life for the respective state. This score is calculated based on various quality of life metrics.
• QualityOfLifeQualityOfLife: The score representing the quality of life aspect for the respective state. This aspect may include subjective factors related to happiness, satisfaction, and overall well-being. Higher scores may indicate a higher level of subjective well-being, happiness, or overall satisfaction among residents. Lower scores could suggest lower levels of subjective well-being.
• QualityOfLifeAffordability: The score representing the affordability aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as cost of living, housing affordability, and income levels. Higher scores typically indicate greater affordability of housing, cost of living, and basic necessities. Lower scores may suggest that these essentials are less accessible or more expensive for residents.
• QualityOfLifeEconomy: The score representing the economic aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect assesses factors such as employment opportunities, economic growth, and income distribution. Higher scores may reflect a stronger economy with more job opportunities, higher incomes, and lower levels of poverty. Lower scores might indicate economic challenges such as unemployment or income inequality.
• QualityOfLifeEducationAndHealth: The score representing the education and health aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect considers factors such as access to quality education, healthcare facilities, and overall public health indicators. Higher scores generally signify better access to quality education, healthcare services, and overall public health. Lower scores may indicate deficiencies in these areas, such as limited access to healthcare or lower educational attainment levels.
• QualityOfLifeSafety: The score representing the safety aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as crime rates, public safety measures, and community well-being initiatives. Higher scores suggest lower crime rates, better community safety, and a higher sense of security among residents. Lower scores may indicate higher crime rates or concerns about safety.

These descriptions provide an overview of what each column represents and the specific aspects of quality of life they assess for each U.S. state.

Using a modified Thomas-Fermi approximation, we model a reference semiconductor system comprising a quasi-1D nanowire with a series of five depletion gates whose voltages determine the number of quantum dots (QDs), the charges on each of the QDs, as well as the conductance through the wire. The original dataset, QFlow lite, consists of 1 001 idealized simulated measurements with gate configurations sampling over different realizations of the same type of device. Each sample data is stored as a 100 x 100-pixel map from plunger gate voltages to (i) current through the device at infinitesimal bias, (ii) output of the charge sensor evaluated as the Coulomb potential at the sensor location - the experimentally relevant parameters that can be measured, (iii) information about the number of charges on each dot (with a default value 0 for short circuit and a barrier), and (iv) a label determining the state of the device, distinguishing between a single dot, a double dot, a short circuit, and a barrier state. The expanded dataset, QFlow 2.0, consists of 1599 idealized simulated measurements stored as roughly 250 x 250-pixel maps from plunger gate voltages to (i) output of the charge sensor, (ii) net charge on each dot, and (iii) a label determining the state of the device, distinguishing between a left, central, and right single QD, a double QD, and a barrier or short circuit (no QD) state. In addition, the QFlow 2.0 dataset includes two sets of noisy simulated measurements, one with the noise level varied around 1.5 times the optimized noise level and the other one with the noise level ranging from 0 to 7 times the optimized noise level. See the "Project description" and "Data structure" documents for additional information about these datasets. Acknowledgments: This research is sponsored in part by the Army Research Office (ARO), through Grant No. W911NF-17-1-0274. The development and maintenance of the growth facilities used for fabricating samples were supported by the Department of Energy, through Grant No. DE-FG02-03ER46028. We acknowledge the use of clean room facilities supported by The National Science Foundation (NSF) through the UW-Madison MRSEC (DMR-1720415) and electron beam lithography equipment acquired with the support of the NSF MRI program (DMR-1625348). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the ARO or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright noted herein. Any mention of commercial products is for information only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST.

Summary:

Estimated stand-off distance between ADS-B equipped aircraft and obstacles. Obstacle information was sourced from the FAA Digital Obstacle File and the FHWA National Bridge Inventory. Aircraft tracks were sourced from processed data curated from the OpenSky Network. Results are presented as histograms organized by aircraft type and distance away from runways.

Description:

For many aviation safety studies, aircraft behavior is represented using encounter models, which are statistical models of how aircraft behave during close encounters. They are used to provide a realistic representation of the range of encounter flight dynamics where an aircraft collision avoidance system would be likely to alert. These models currently and have historically have been limited to interactions between aircraft; they have not represented the specific interactions between obstacles and aircraft equipped transponders. In response, we calculated the standoff distance between obstacles and ADS-B equipped manned aircraft.

For robustness, this assessment considered two different datasets of manned aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. For robustness, MIT LL calculated the standoff distance using two different datasets of aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. This approach aligned with the foundational research used to support the ASTM F3442/F3442M-20 well clear criteria of 2000 feet laterally and 250 feet AGL vertically.

The two datasets of processed tracks of ADS-B equipped aircraft curated from the OpenSky Network. It is likely that rotorcraft were underrepresented in these datasets. There were also no considerations for aircraft equipped only with Mode C or not equipped with any transponders. The first dataset was used to train the v1.3 uncorrelated encounter models and referred to as the “Monday” dataset. The second dataset is referred to as the “aerodrome” dataset and was used to train the v2.0 and v3.x terminal encounter model. The Monday dataset consisted of 104 Mondays across North America. The other dataset was based on observations at least 8 nautical miles within Class B, C, D aerodromes in the United States for the first 14 days of each month from January 2019 through February 2020. Prior to any processing, the datasets required 714 and 847 Gigabytes of storage. For more details on these datasets, please refer to "Correlated Bayesian Model of Aircraft Encounters in the Terminal Area Given a Straight Takeoff or Landing" and “Benchmarking the Processing of Aircraft Tracks with Triples Mode and Self-Scheduling.”

Two different datasets of obstacles were also considered. First was point obstacles defined by the FAA digital obstacle file (DOF) and consisted of point obstacle structures of antenna, lighthouse, meteorological tower (met), monument, sign, silo, spire (steeple), stack (chimney; industrial smokestack), transmission line tower (t-l tower), tank (water; fuel), tramway, utility pole (telephone pole, or pole of similar height, supporting wires), windmill (wind turbine), and windsock. Each obstacle was represented by a cylinder with the height reported by the DOF and a radius based on the report horizontal accuracy. We did not consider the actual width and height of the structure itself. Additionally, we only considered obstacles at least 50 feet tall and marked as verified in the DOF.

The other obstacle dataset, termed as “bridges,” was based on the identified bridges in the FAA DOF and additional information provided by the National Bridge Inventory. Due to the potential size and extent of bridges, it would not be appropriate to model them as point obstacles; however, the FAA DOF only provides a point location and no information about the size of the bridge. In response, we correlated the FAA DOF with the National Bridge Inventory, which provides information about the length of many bridges. Instead of sizing the simulated bridge based on horizontal accuracy, like with the point obstacles, the bridges were represented as circles with a radius of the longest, nearest bridge from the NBI. A circle representation was required because neither the FAA DOF or NBI provided sufficient information about orientation to represent bridges as rectangular cuboid. Similar to the point obstacles, the height of the obstacle was based on the height reported by the FAA DOF. Accordingly, the analysis using the bridge dataset should be viewed as risk averse and conservative. It is possible that a manned aircraft was hundreds of feet away from an obstacle in actuality but the estimated standoff distance could be significantly less. Additionally, all obstacles are represented with a fixed height, the potentially flat and low level entrances of the bridge are assumed to have the same height as the tall bridge towers. The attached figure illustrates an example simulated bridge.

It would had been extremely computational inefficient to calculate the standoff distance for all possible track points. Instead, we define an encounter between an aircraft and obstacle as when an aircraft flying 3069 feet AGL or less comes within 3000 feet laterally of any obstacle in a 60 second time interval. If the criteria were satisfied, then for that 60 second track segment we calculate the standoff distance to all nearby obstacles. Vertical separation was based on the MSL altitude of the track and the maximum MSL height of an obstacle.

For each combination of aircraft track and obstacle datasets, the results were organized seven different ways. Filtering criteria were based on aircraft type and distance away from runways. Runway data was sourced from the FAA runways of the United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands open dataset. Aircraft type was identified as part of the em-processing-opensky workflow.

• All: No filter, all observations that satisfied encounter conditions
• nearRunway: Aircraft within or at 2 nautical miles of a runway
• awayRunway: Observations more than 2 nautical miles from a runway
• glider: Observations when aircraft type is a glider
• fwme: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing multi-engine
• fwse: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing single engine
• rotorcraft: Observations when aircraft type is a rotorcraft

License

This dataset is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form and for noncommercial purposes only. Only noncommercial use of your work is permitted. Noncommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Exceptions are given for the not for profit standards organizations of ASTM International and RTCA.

MIT is releasing this dataset in good faith to promote open and transparent research of the low altitude airspace. Given the limitations of the dataset and a need for more research, a more restrictive license was warranted. Namely it is based only on only observations of ADS-B equipped aircraft, which not all aircraft in the airspace are required to employ; and observations were source from a crowdsourced network whose surveillance coverage has not been robustly characterized.

As more research is conducted and the low altitude airspace is further characterized or regulated, it is expected that a future version of this dataset may have a more permissive license.

Distribution Statement

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

© 2021 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Delivered to the U.S. Government with Unlimited Rights, as defined in DFARS Part 252.227-7013 or 7014 (Feb 2014). Notwithstanding any copyright notice, U.S. Government rights in this work are defined by DFARS 252.227-7013 or DFARS 252.227-7014 as detailed above. Use of this work other than as specifically authorized by the U.S. Government may violate any copyrights that exist in this work.

This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Aviation Administration under Air Force Contract No. FA8702-15-D-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Aviation Administration.

This document is derived from work done for the FAA (and possibly others); it is not the direct product of work done for the FAA. The information provided herein may include content supplied by third parties. Although the data and information contained herein has been produced or processed from sources believed to be reliable, the Federal Aviation Administration makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, legality, reliability or usefulness of any information, conclusions or recommendations provided herein. Distribution of the information contained herein does not constitute an endorsement or warranty of the data or information provided herein by the Federal Aviation Administration or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the U.S. Department of

... The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy then provided a formal charge, asking PITAC members to concentrate their efforts on the focus, balance, and affectiveness of current Federal cyber security research and development R and D activities see Appendix A. To conduct this examination, PITAC established the Subcommittee on Cyber Security, whose work culminated in this report, Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization...

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work). People with jobs are employed. People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed. The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

The American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year 2016-2020 socioeconomic estimate data is a subset of information derived from the following census tables:B08013 - Aggregate Travel Time To Work Of Workers By Sex;B08303 - Travel Time To Work;B17019 - Poverty Status In The Past 12 Months Of Families By Household Type By Tenure;B17021 - Poverty Status Of Individuals In The Past 12 Months By Living Arrangement;B19001 - Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19013 - Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19025 - Aggregate Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19113 - Median Family Income In The Past 12 Months;B19202 - Median Non-family Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B23001 - Sex By Age By Employment Status For The Population 16 Years And Over;B25014 - Tenure By Occupants Per Room;B25026 - Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by year Householder Moved into Unit;B25106 - Tenure By Housing Costs As A Percentage Of Household Income In The Past 12 Months;C24010 - Sex By Occupation For The Civilian Employed Population 16 Years And Over;B20004 - Median Earnings In the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Sex by Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Over;B23006 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 to 64 Years, and;B24021 - Occupation By Median Earnings In The Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) For The Full-Time, Year-Round Civilian Employed Population 16 Years And Over.

To learn more about the American Community Survey (ACS), and associated datasets visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_ACS 5-Year Socioeconomic Estimate Data by CountyDate of Coverage: 2016-2020

Context

Mass Shootings in the United States of America (1966-2017)

The US has witnessed 398 mass shootings in last 50 years that resulted in 1,996 deaths and 2,488 injured. The latest and the worst mass shooting of October 2, 2017 killed 58 and injured 515 so far. The number of people injured in this attack is more than the number of people injured in all mass shootings of 2015 and 2016 combined.

The average number of mass shootings per year is 7 for the last 50 years that would claim 39 lives and 48 injured per year.

Content

Geography: United States of America

Time period: 1966-2017

Unit of analysis: Mass Shooting Attack

Dataset: The dataset contains detailed information of 398 mass shootings in the United States of America that killed 1996 and injured 2488 people.

Variables: The dataset contains Serial No, Title, Location, Date, Summary, Fatalities, Injured, Total Victims, Mental Health Issue, Race, Gender, and Lat-Long information.

Acknowledgements

I’ve consulted several public datasets and web pages to compile this data.

Some of the major data sources include Wikipedia, Mother Jones, Stanford, USA Today and other web sources.

Inspiration

With a broken heart, I like to call the attention of my fellow Kagglers to use Machine Learning and Data Sciences to help me explore these ideas:

• How many people got killed and injured per year?

• Visualize mass shootings on the U.S map

• Is there any correlation between shooter and his/her race, gender

• Any correlation with calendar dates? Do we have more deadly days, weeks or months on average

• What cities and states are more prone to such attacks

• Can you find and combine any other external datasets to enrich the analysis, for example, gun ownership by state

• Any other pattern you see that can help in prediction, crowd safety or in-depth analysis of the event

• How many shooters have some kind of mental health problem? Can we compare that shooter with general population with same condition

Mass Shootings Dataset Ver 3

This is the new Version of Mass Shootings Dataset. I've added eight new variables:

Incident Area (where the incident took place), Open/Close Location (Inside a building or open space) Target (possible target audience or company), Cause (Terrorism, Hate Crime, Fun (for no obvious reason etc.) Policeman Killed (how many on duty officers got killed) Age (age of the shooter) Employed (Y/N) Employed at (Employer Name) Age, Employed and Employed at (3 variables) contain shooter details

Mass Shootings Dataset Ver 4

Quite a few missing values have been added

Mass Shootings Dataset Ver 5

Three more recent mass shootings have been added including the Texas Church shooting of November 5, 2017

I hope it will help create more visualization and extract patterns.

Keep Coding!

The United States Documented Unplugged Orphaned Oil and Gas Well (DOW) dataset contains 117,672 wells in 27 states. The definition of an orphaned oil or gas well varies across data sources; the dataset includes oil or gas wells where the state indicates that the well is an unplugged orphan, or the following criteria are met: 1) no production for an average of 12 months (6 to 24 months depending on the state), 2) the well is unplugged, 3) there is no responsible party to manage the well for future re-use or for plugging and abandonment, and 4) the location of the well is documented. The dataset includes location coordinates, American Petroleum Institute (API) number, or other identification number, well type, well status, and additional information for each unplugged orphaned well. All data were collected by direct requests to the respective state agency overseeing oil and gas wells or data downloads from their online databases. Location format conversion was performed on wells wi ...

The Civil List reports the agency code (DPT), first initial and last name (NAME), agency name (ADDRESS), title code (TTL #), pay class (PC), and salary (SAL-RATE) of individuals who were employed by the City of New York at any given time during the indicated year.

This comprehensive report chronicles the history of women in the military and as Veterans, profiles the characteristics of women Veterans in 2009, illustrates how women Veterans in 2009 utilized some of the major benefits and services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and discusses the future of women Veterans in relation to VA. The goal of this report is to gain an understanding of who our women Veterans are, how their military service affects their post-military lives, and how they can be better served based on these insights.

The Time Zones dataset was compiled on October 04, 2019 and was updated January 05, 2023 from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This layer is a digital representation of the geographic boundaries of the nine time zones that cover the United States and its territories (the Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii–Aleutian, Samoa, and Chamorro time zones). The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees the Nation's time zones and the uniform observance of Daylight-Saving Time. The oversight of time zones was assigned to DOT due to the importance of time coordination for transportation related activities. The time zones were established by the Standard Time Act of 1918 and amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966. Time zones in the U.S. are defined in the U.S. Code, Title 15, Chapter 6, Subchapter IX - Standard Time. The time zone boundaries are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49, Subtitle A, Part 71 - Standard Time Zone Boundaries. Segments used to compile the geospatial layer were derived from the CFR’s time zone descriptions (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-71). Descriptions consist of segments referencing administrative boundaries, infrastructure, natural features, and geodesic lines. These segments are contained in various data layers in the National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) portfolio, the federal government’s authoritative geospatial data repository. Referenced segments were extracted from their NGDA and then merged to form continuous boundaries. In instances where there were multiple scales for a given dataset, the largest scale or most detailed layer was used. The standard time of the Atlantic zone is the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) minus 4 hours; Eastern zone is UTC minus 5 hours; Central zone is UTC minus 6 hours; Mountain zone is UTC minus 7 hours; Pacific zone is UTC minus 8 hours; Alaska zone is UTC minus 9 hours; Hawaii–Aleutian zone is UTC minus 10 hours; Samoa zone is UTC minus 11 hours; and Chamorro zone is UTC plus 10 hours. For more information, please visit: https://doi.org/10.21949/1519143.

The Federal Bonding Program dataset includes information on the individuals and employers who are covered by bonds issued by the program. Data includes the address, gender, race, and Hispanic ethnicity of the individual being covered; the occupation, wage, and hours for work of the job the individual is being hired for; and the industry, sector (public/private/non-profit), and the number of employees of the firm being covered.