I don't want to blame it all on 9/11, but it certainly didn't help.

It's not like their lives are better elsewhere just because there are smaller buildings. In Canada, for example, the majority of breeding sows spend most of their lives in crates too small to turn around in. This isn't unique to Canada either.

Exactly. Hopefully it gets canceled after 6 or 7 more seasons.

Those are considered F3s there.

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.

Makes sense, I'll take your word on that then. The important thing is Canada is by far number one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whatever standard you chose would still be arbitrary though.

My vote goes for using 1000 mile long segments to measure borders.

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?

Can't be measured.

>The coastline paradox is the counterintuitive observation that the coastline of a landmass does not have a well-defined length. This results from the fractal curve-like properties of coastlines.

The length changes depending on how you measure it.

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.

And it's not even praising. It's just factual information. It's not like it makes them better or something.

Is that what it's about? I wasn't getting why everyone was flipping out over some random geographic trivia.

They explicitly stated that it's "land" area.

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.

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.

Who said anyone needs to care? It's just a piece of information.

Canada is bigger than both overall, but has less land area than both.

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.

Not overall, but if you exclude water territory and only include land, then yeah.

Yeah, so now people know they're different.

Cause people will think they're the same anyway.