One of the design choices in WORLD SIGNAL is to explicitly say when the data shows something unusual but there isn t enough external evidence yet to explain it. I d love feedback on whether that transparency is useful or frustrating.
Today I m thinking about internet disruptions, aviation, seismic activity, weather, public alerts and news. If you could add one new real-world data source, what would it be?
WORLD SIGNAL correlates changes across internet activity, aviation, infrastructure and external reporting. I m curious where users would draw the line between interesting anomaly and actionable event.
WORLD SIGNAL monitors real-world systems: earthquakes, wildfires, internet connectivity, aviation and more, to detect unusual activity across the planet. Explore anomalies, compare them with historical baselines, and investigate the evidence behind every signal.
