Comments
GetsGold t1_j6e9gq3 wrote
It's not meaningless. It's just another measurement. It doesn't mean China is actually bigger than these two countries, it's just saying they have more land area. That's still an interesting piece of information.
[deleted] t1_j6ebxvn wrote
[deleted]
GetsGold t1_j6efq3x wrote
Who said anyone needs to care? It's just a piece of information.
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ega20 wrote
What information do you think you are providing?
GetsGold t1_j6egg7z wrote
Which countries have the most land area. Exactly what the post says. It doesn't mean countries are better, it's simply a piece of geographical information.
ThisIsPermanent t1_j6lfgbi wrote
It’s….. it’s in the title of the post?
Lippy010 t1_j6ecyko wrote
Walmart and any discount store cares more about China just look where all their over priced products come from
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ed9lr wrote
That has nothing to do with the topic. Just trying pull some straw man shit lol go away.
rbhxzx t1_j6egah4 wrote
you don't know what a straw man is lol. he's being an idiot, just tell him that. you don't have to try to use terms you don't understand to dunk on his ""argument"" as if he or us were even having one.
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6egfto wrote
Ya, ok
I_FIGHT_BEAR t1_j6ezzkf wrote
Yeah there’s plenty of other criteria that can be used to justify how big a country is. Population is one, even better might be ‘persons per square mile’ if you’re talking about a place like Russia where the landmass is huge but the populations are centered to specific regions
GetsGold t1_j6g19fg wrote
The post isn't claiming to justify anything though. It's just stating which countries have the most land mass. Not which are biggest overall or in any other way.
cnnrduncan t1_j6h2tr4 wrote
If you're counting a country's size as the size of their EEZ then my country is the 4th largest in the world!
redstonebrain40 t1_j6iys8h wrote
Canada too. We are smol on population
I_FIGHT_BEAR t1_j6iz099 wrote
Yup. I’m from California, one of the oft-repeated ‘facts’ we bring up is that our state population is higher than Canada’s, which still to this day blows my goddamn mind. And if I’m honest, makes me want to move to Canada so I can fucking BREATHE
redstonebrain40 t1_j6j0e3l wrote
Highly recommended! Southern Ontario is basically just a big minessoda but maybe more progressive in general. Come out and visit Algonquin Park some day. And visit Toronto. Its all a treat!
Wired_143 t1_j6jipts wrote
Having fewer people around you is a really nice feeling. Canadian here. We moved from a small city (1+ mil) to a town under 15k. Best decision we have ever made.
Powdercum t1_j6ghern wrote
"Tallest free-standing structure in the Western hemisphere"
ForceOfAHorse t1_j6hmud3 wrote
Why you say so? I'd say it's a better measurement considering talking about population density. You generally can't build homes, factories, farms or cities on water.
pzerr t1_j6iahp1 wrote
Land with lakes are far more valuable and useful than land alone and can sustain far far more people.
You want bodies of water to make land useful. Particular in that there is no lack of land in North America.
Taurus-Littrow t1_j6id92w wrote
Yankees, just wait and see how valuable water is.
samfreez t1_j6i0z5e wrote
Can't build any of that on mountain ranges or in inaccessible valleys, deserts, etc either..
Jahobes t1_j6p32v4 wrote
I mean I would venture there are more mountain cities and towns inside and alongside than there are towns and cities built on or in water.
samfreez t1_j6p3s6x wrote
It would be interesting to see the real numbers there, because a lot of big cities have "reclaimed" massive tracts of land from the oceans they butt up against, in addition to things like docks and piers and things deliberately built over top of otherwise open water.
Then there are house boats and whatnot, and even entire towns in some countries (SE Asia has more than a couple floating towns IIRC, though I don't remember where exactly)
Edit: I also don't count a city/town built at the base of a mountain, because that's just normal land. I'm talking more about the inaccessible peaks themselves. Some countries like China do that a lot more often than you see in, for example, the US, but I suspect most of that would be a wash overall.
dracoryn t1_j6i5s7u wrote
Not meaningless, just depends what meaning you get. Say you wanted to filter to "habitable" square milage? You might filter out bodies of water, mountains, areas that get almost no rain, etc.
It is only arbitrary if you aren't intentional with filtering.
pzerr t1_j6ia46v wrote
And lakes and land are far more valuable than land alone.
elpajaroquemamais t1_j6kfer0 wrote
Reminds me of baseball stats: first Puerto Rican to hit a grand slam on a Tuesday after the all star break!
RaiShado t1_j6mosg4 wrote
US total area is 7% water, Canada total area is 9% water, not that far off.
soolkyut t1_j6fq2xn wrote
Except lots and lots of Canada is an unusable wasteland.
Edit: Sry, but as a Canadian it’s the truth. It’s why everyone lives on the border
MrLeopard25 t1_j6h04zd wrote
I know you're referring to the Canadian Shield, but as someone who lives in BC, most of our province is hardly a wasteland. More of bear-country / boonies
AdRepulsive7699 t1_j6ewifv wrote
With all that’s going on here I believe it should go to r/shittymapporn
mnfimo t1_j6ejr6i wrote
This comment section is intense
DrLeprechaun t1_j6euzrx wrote
Mfs getting heated over land measurements lmfao
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6ezwxr wrote
Americans go red in the face if you mention China lol
redstonebrain40 t1_j6iy8o8 wrote
Red white and blur
GetsGold t1_j6fa4au wrote
Is that what it's about? I wasn't getting why everyone was flipping out over some random geographic trivia.
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6fafh9 wrote
Lol yeah I assume so, hence me being downvoted already. Try praising anything about China on a non-political issue (working to prevent the desertification of areas near the Gobi, tech innovations) and you’ll get a bunch of what I assume are bots calling you an authoritarian lol. Nuance seems to instantly be lost on people.
Dyzerio t1_j6if45w wrote
!remind me 20 years on that desertification
GetsGold t1_j6fartp wrote
And it's not even praising. It's just factual information. It's not like it makes them better or something.
redstonebrain40 t1_j6iyi49 wrote
I'm mean, China sucks. America sucks. Material facts of a country aren't affected. If kinda bigger, China bigger. Look im canadian so I have the worst leg to loose anyways. Eat ur syrup and like it bots.
castortusk t1_j6fzbza wrote
Did you know Switzerland is larger than Russia? (only measuring land area that is an Alp)
tenehemia t1_j6icnw5 wrote
I wonder how much surface area Switzerland has. Like if you could flatten out all the mountains.
Tommo_Robbo t1_j6j5w4k wrote
I think that’s a fantastic question for r/theydidthemath
MukdenMan t1_j6lwt4s wrote
I wonder if this would make New Zealand the largest country in the world (based on Alp land area)
-Bob_Frapples t1_j6gj51s wrote
There are also more people in California than all of Canada.
any1particular t1_j6kiat6 wrote
LA county AS COMPARED to the population of Canada:
LA COUNTY=9.83 million (2021)
CANADA=38.25 million (2021)
FuschiaKnight t1_j6lvgk2 wrote
My favorite stat about population weirdness is that there are more Trump votes in LA County than in West Virginia
Doormatty t1_j6e2esk wrote
You realize they’re not counting surface water right in that list right? No other measurement of area does that.
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6e2ld2 wrote
Yes I know. That's why I said land area. I just wanted to point it out.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6egl4r wrote
This is a very nuanced statistic, to the point of being deceptive.
GetsGold t1_j6eh4rj wrote
There's nothing deceptive about it. It's exactly what it says: those countries have more land area. It doesn't mean they're bigger overall.
fuckalphanumeric t1_j6ehhwt wrote
How is ranking countries by land area deceptive?
HouseOfZenith t1_j6h6s7f wrote
How?
BanjosAndBoredom t1_j6ic9ls wrote
"I misread the title and made incorrect assumptions, so obviously I was intentionally misled."
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ec64c wrote
Habitable land would be interesting. I'm not so sure about this.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6eh0yp wrote
The question here would be defining "habitable".
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ehk8q wrote
Land that is habitable. Lots of hostile land in China, Russia and u.s. that is generally... well, worthless for anyone to reasonably live in.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6ewuoj wrote
Except people live there. So who gets to determine that their land, where they are living is "uninhabitable"? You?
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6gh1cp wrote
In a technical sense there are very few places that are truly uninhabitable.
In a practical sense, there are many pieces where humans cannot create survive in without a nomadic lifestyle or a steady supply of resources necessary for survival.
Low earth orbit is not really habitable for human beings despite some people temporarily living up there
pennysmom2016 t1_j6gi5aq wrote
But nomads have inhabited places like the Gobi and the Sahara and sustained themselves for thousands of years while those in low earth orbit are completely unable to sustain themselves without resupply for even one.
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6i2n3g wrote
Yeah, nomads, requiring them to move around because no particular place can sustain them.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6i5cm3 wrote
But the region can...
traws06 t1_j6el8mi wrote
There’s very few places on earth where humans don’t live, so hard to decimate find many places “uninhabitable”
Bruce-7891 t1_j6ewkpp wrote
True, with enough effort and resources space is habitable, but there are places where no one would permanently settle. In the US I think of parts of the Mojave desert and in China parts of the Himalayas
traws06 t1_j6exetv wrote
Would they really be more inhabitable than northern Canada? Not rhetorical I’m not versed in geography to that degree. In my mind even a desert has water if you drill deep enough.
Hell, there are thriving cities in deserts in the Middle East
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6ghn83 wrote
Not all deserts are made equal.
There's a huge difference between the Mojave, which had permanent settlement by native Americans, and the Sahara, which has massive areas with no vegetation or rainfall.
traws06 t1_j6giez1 wrote
It could be inhabitable at least with a pipeline for water I would imagine? It just wouldn’t self sufficient.
Cold it seems would cause more issues than heat. Cold causes issues with machines, fuel, and other stuff necessary for survival.
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6i2uxw wrote
Temperature is not as important as access to water.
cnnrduncan t1_j6h2xow wrote
The Sahara has been populated by Berbers, Garamantians etc. for thousands of years though.
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6i32nk wrote
Yeah, as nomads who cannot stay in any one place or they'll die.
cnnrduncan t1_j6j5et4 wrote
The Garamanteans had irrigated cities and agriculture in the sahara.
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6j5xk9 wrote
Not in the dune seas.
Stubborncomrade t1_j6etvz3 wrote
These comments bro 💀
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6eztd4 wrote
Americans will go feral at any mention of China that isn’t wholly negative lol
Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho t1_j6gl2dj wrote
The only one going feral here is you.
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6gmjtu wrote
Found the American lol
LonesomePrairieCabin t1_j6gwv2a wrote
found the shill
HouseOfZenith t1_j6h6qke wrote
Finally found u/lonesomeprairiecabin
enterthewoods1 t1_j6iymy2 wrote
China has fascinating history, however you’d be lying if you said they weren’t Americas largest enemy in the global political climate, kinda makes sense that Americans wouldn’t like them.
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6j1aiw wrote
Yes, but to lash out when there’s any mention of them is irrational and childish. You* can have an enemy without acting like a child lol.
*does not apply to redditors apparently
enterthewoods1 t1_j6j1k7j wrote
Lmao you don’t need to try be snarky it’s not gonna further any kind of discussion.
Do you have this same opinion of Chinese social media and mainstream media? Because it’s just as feverish if not worse.
You’re basically telling all of humanity to grow up, most people won’t, this is how geopolitics goes for the majority of a population.
Consistent_Ad_4828 t1_j6j1o8k wrote
There’s no discussion to be had lol. Look at the votes! These people are incapable of rationality or discussion. Essentially animals.
enterthewoods1 t1_j6j1zjs wrote
Lol ur probably getting downvoted because you come off pretentious and snarky and people don’t like that.
You’re literally calling people animals, if you don’t want discussion fine but don’t be surprised when people dislike you with no discussion if that’s your stance, maybe you need to grow up.
Also I literally am discussing with you and you’re waving it off, by your own definition aren’t you an “animal” too?
iamnotthelizardqueen t1_j6ev8zx wrote
So what you’re saying is that with enough caveats, the United States is the largest biggest girthiest county
W_O_M_B_A_T t1_j6fr1qm wrote
The US has Big Dick Energy tho.
iamnotthelizardqueen t1_j6gitk6 wrote
I dont doubt it thinks it does
decimalsanddollars t1_j6j000y wrote
Big dick energy doesn’t necessarily mean big dick anatomy.
RaiShado t1_j6mpzqf wrote
No, that's not what they are saying, if you had received a proper education you would be able to see that at the very highest the US is second in land area, followed by Canada and led by China, simply from the title. However, you decided to not read the title nor the information in the webpage linked to and just hate on the US.
Take your hate elsewhere.
iamnotthelizardqueen t1_j6mwhpq wrote
That was sarcasm. Girth is not a unit of measure.
Next time attack the argument and not the person.
Especially what you presume about me is pretty shitty and quite untrue.
RaiShado t1_j6obt2u wrote
aTTacK tHe aRgumENt NOT ThE pErson
Thank you, you have let me rule out the complete idiot part and I can now classify you as just a gigantic festering asshole.
You had ZERO argument to attack, you were trying to use sarcasm to hate on Americans just because you think it's fun to hate on Americans.
And now, after you get called out on it, you are playing the victim. Just STFU and, like I said before, take your hate elsewhere.
Also, just so you know, largest and biggest are also not units of measure. But all three, including girth, can be measured, the units would vary depending on what was being measured, and in the case of land area it would be square kilometers or square miles. Although largest and biggest are synonyms so it's the same either way. Girth wouldn't be measured in this instance as it is another term for circumference or perimeter.
Flimsy-Antelope4763 t1_j6e95cz wrote
China is also expanding their land area.
_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ec8sn wrote
They wish anyhow...
Dismal_Document_Dive t1_j6etdx1 wrote
No no, it's already happened.
Unless you have some miracle in your back pocket to demilitarize their newly built islands in the SCS, that is.
IndraBlue t1_j6frywp wrote
What are they teaching in schools now if you learned this today ?
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6izv33 wrote
Why do people say this acting like they're so smart? This isn't even learned in school because the total area is used over land area, the only reason a teacher might tell you that is because interesting to know. You're blatantly lying.
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6j1sy3 wrote
Also, I already knew the U.S. was bigger, I was just providing context for the overall fact that China is higher than both of them in the rankings of total land area.
acroman39 t1_j6ktsp9 wrote
There’s land under water so..
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6kw6ld wrote
Wow, what a great revalation. It’s almost like we’re talking about surface land.
acroman39 t1_j6kwvbk wrote
What about during droughts in the summer when lake levels dramatically drop?
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6l15hy wrote
What does that have to do with anything? How do I know how they calculate it?
Use your brain.
Edit: Also, you even just said that the lake level drops, not fully dries up. So nothing would change even if the lake levels dropped since there is still water there.
WellyKiwi t1_j6hek1i wrote
Are they measuring all the crinkly bits though?
Tulol t1_j6eutr4 wrote
China has a giant Gobie desert that’s not useable.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6f1tsf wrote
But people live there...
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6ghs8b wrote
Ah yes can't discount the strategic significance of camel breeding
Rattus375 t1_j6i8mm0 wrote
This is very interesting. I knew Canada had far more lakes in it relative to the US, but I never would have guessed it was to the degree that would make the US the bigger country by land area. Why so many people are upset by a fun fact I will never understand
pzerr t1_j6iatk4 wrote
Because not having lakes makes the land mass far less valuable and useful thus many Americans are angry by that fact.
Rattus375 t1_j6id7k0 wrote
Well that's just a moronic take that's just trying to be divisive for no good reason. Objectively, canada has far less useful and valuable land than the US does. There's a reason the majority of the population lives right on the border. Having more lakes isn't inherently good or bad as long as it doesn't tend too far towards either extreme and this says absolutely nothing about the countries listed other than their land area
pzerr t1_j6idwq2 wrote
You were just asking why people were upset. Sorry if that upset you.
acroman39 t1_j6ku2j9 wrote
Ya sure buddy. The 100,000 lakes in Ontario make it sooooo valuable.
pzerr t1_j6lcfqn wrote
Not sure why you guys are so angry. Could be the lack of lakes?
moonlightpeas t1_j6gt2mt wrote
Have you tried seeing how big china is if you take Taiwan away?
sineroth745756 t1_j6fyut8 wrote
what about using border length?
GetsGold t1_j6g1k2h wrote
Can't be measured.
The length changes depending on how you measure it.
Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j6gi0pu wrote
It really just needs to be standardized
GetsGold t1_j6gi92w wrote
Whatever standard you chose would still be arbitrary though.
My vote goes for using 1000 mile long segments to measure borders.
releasethedogs t1_j6gnznp wrote
So what. The kilometer is arbitrary. Many measurements are arbitrary. The point is it’s standardized.
GetsGold t1_j6gpqde wrote
Whether you use kilometers or miles doesn't change the end result. It's still the same length regardless of units. But choosing how accurately you measure the border does change the result, and the accuracy you choose is arbitrary.
[deleted] t1_j6g4iay wrote
[removed]
kumquat_repub t1_j6guilm wrote
The lengths of coastlines cannot be measured absolutely, but they can be compared…relative to one another. You just have to use the same measuring standard on each one for a comparative measurement.
GetsGold t1_j6gvkbv wrote
But whatever comparison method you choose is going to be arbitrary. What if one method makes the US longer while another makes China longer? Then you're going to have the same drama as in this comment section over which to use.
kumquat_repub t1_j6gwms9 wrote
Yes whatever comparison method you choose will be arbitrary, but the smaller the scale of the measurements, the more accurate it becomes to find relative coastline lengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline?wprov=sfti1
This Wikipedia article begins by explaining the coastline paradox but then states the measurements were taken at 1:250,000 scale. There are GIS tools that can calculate the lengths of coastline at this scale and add them up, giving you a very accurate relative list of coastlines…the key word is relative.
GetsGold t1_j6gwx9p wrote
That doesn't seem to match what the article is saying:
>The smaller the scale interval (meaning the more detailed the measurement), the longer the coastline will be.
It doesn't make it more accurate, it just makes it longer.
kumquat_repub t1_j6gxdkw wrote
Yes they will get longer…all of them will, but they will remain proportional to each other. The US has roughly 4.4 times as much coastline as China. If you make the scale interval smaller, they will both increase in length but the ratio will remain roughly 4.4:1
GetsGold t1_j6gyxyx wrote
Makes sense, I'll take your word on that then. The important thing is Canada is by far number one.
sineroth745756 t1_j6g7h9k wrote
use a map at 1:1000 scale and a piece of string measure the string... that paradox Assumes you keep zooming to grains of sand
GetsGold t1_j6gb89y wrote
The paradox doesn't depend on continuously zooming, the problem is that the length changes depending on the accuracy of your measurement or how much you zoom. So you could choose a string, and choose how sharply to bend that string around the border, but that's arbitrary. Why not a thinner string with a smaller scale of tracing, or a thicker rope with less sharp tracing?
sineroth745756 t1_j6godom wrote
because u are comparing so u use the same size string lol yer just being difficult 8)
GetsGold t1_j6gpyqr wrote
You're comparing with the same size string, but the size you use is arbitrary and you will get different comparisons depending on the choice. With one choice, one country might have a larger border, with another, another might. And look how many complaints there are in this thread just because China has a bigger land area. Now imagine if there is one string that would give China a bigger border and one which gives the US a bigger one. Then China would just choose the measurement which makes them bigger and US the other.
sineroth745756 t1_j6ho4q1 wrote
use the same string pal and u can see which one has a longer boarder.
efnfen4 t1_j6h7cgv wrote
Everything changes depending on how you measure it
GetsGold t1_j6hdbwa wrote
In other cases, like with area, the actual area doesn't change, just you estimation of it.
With border length however, there is no "actual" length, as the more accurate you measure it, the length will increase and not ever get closer and closer to some specific value.
the_hell_you_say t1_j6e8fvb wrote
Wait...does that mean China is bigger than Canada? 🤔🤯
GetsGold t1_j6e8qgm wrote
Not overall, but if you exclude water territory and only include land, then yeah.
Castod28183 t1_j6gzn6x wrote
I wonder what the phrase, "land area" could possibly mean...maybe it includes water territory also...water territory is probably included in land area also, right?
[deleted] t1_j6h06gt wrote
[deleted]
e_spider t1_j6g264l wrote
So the above map should not have 3/4 on China and US. The US should always be 3 and China and Canada should have 2/4 on their ranking.
[deleted] t1_j6euo8t wrote
[removed]
TmAimOND t1_j6gmk88 wrote
Hydra57 t1_j6gxdgg wrote
A while ago I learned Spain was bigger than France, and both were bigger than Germany. The mercator projection was deceiving me.
[deleted] t1_j6ig5oj wrote
[removed]
LassitudinalPosition t1_j6j0pfk wrote
Having a lot of land area and not a lot of water seems like a not great thing!
[deleted] t1_j6j2cub wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6k788r wrote
[removed]
elpajaroquemamais t1_j6kf912 wrote
TIL water floats and totally doesn’t have anything under it.
[deleted] t1_j6l34uu wrote
[deleted]
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6l3gg7 wrote
TIL you can’t live on water. Shocking right?
Equivalent_Bunch_187 t1_j6mlgzo wrote
If you only count the surface area resembling a boot, Italy is the largest country in the world.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6f18yk wrote
Because most people consider the inland water area of a nation as part of that nation's area. By not explicitly stating that you are excluding that area, you are presenting intentionally misleading information.
GetsGold t1_j6fa0je wrote
They explicitly stated that it's "land" area.
pennysmom2016 t1_j6fabvu wrote
Sure.
W_O_M_B_A_T t1_j6fqr3r wrote
You mean those maps of north America LIED to me?
Responsible_Smile789 t1_j6kl8k1 wrote
“according to older versions of the CIA World Factbook (from 1982 to 1996), the U.S. was listed as the world's fourth-largest country (after Russia, Canada, and China) with a total area of 9,372,610 km2. However, in the 1997 edition, the U.S. added coastal waters to its total area (increasing it to 9,629,091 km2). And then again in 2007, the U.S. added territorial water to its total area (increasing it to 9,833,517 km2). During this time, China's total area remained unchanged. In other words, no coastal or territorial water area was added to China's total area figure.”
-From the source of the rankings(Britannica, United Nations)
So basically in the US we acknowledged China was bigger until 1997 then decided to count 100 miles of water off our entire coast to boost our stats. Hawaii too and I bet we even counted Puerto Rico to boost our stats even though we won’t allow territories to become actual states and get the benefits. Which isn’t a big deal but it is a lil lets wave our dick in the wind uncle sam type of thing.
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6lf7d9 wrote
So since some geniuses keep making dumb responses to the post, I’ll answer the questions here.
-
When it says LAND area it means SURFACE LAND AREA. I didn’t think I would have to specify since it’s obvious.
-
No it’s not common knowledge, neither Is it regularly taught in schools like some people are claiming.
-
I didn’t do the measurements. So stop asking me “what ifs”.
-
Land area is not that specific of a measurement, so talking about how it’s too specific doesn’t really apply here.
Sufficient-Frame3041 t1_j6gwth3 wrote
Is Alaska even included in the area rankings?
torsun_bryan t1_j6hq1fe wrote
lol — what a sad state the American education system is in now
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6e2bbj wrote
This is a repost because the link I gave before was bad.
[deleted] t1_j6e2ium wrote
[deleted]
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6e2q4x wrote
No I'm not???? Have you even looked at the link? Why do you keep commenting on my posts saying I'm wrong, search it up I'm literally right.
Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j6gsakl wrote
That is such an American post. Geography and foreign languages are American achilles heels.
Mewhenthe4 OP t1_j6iypck wrote
I'm Canadian, try again
Alternative-Flan2869 t1_j6jchvy wrote
Oh no - canadians are afflicted too!
Ok-disaster2022 t1_j6gsyea wrote
Does dick measuring surface area matter in the scheme of things? Farm able land seems more important.
monotrememories t1_j6f75rn wrote
I can’t believe someone just learned this today
samfreez t1_j6e8unq wrote
Land area is a terrible determination of size, because Canada has thousands and thousands of lakes and other bodies of water, many more than the US or China..
This basically shows why stats can be meaningless if you add enough caveats.