Moving the goal post fallacy. You established that number of languages and ethnic groups present was the criteria for measuring diversity. Once your criteria was challenged, you then introduced a new methodology based on a researcher using fractionalization, a methodology that happens to achieve your conclusion.

The US is a very diverse country given its constant flow of immigrants and lack of lengthy history or genealogy. Can you claim other places are more diverse that have a bunch of tribes and ethnicities that belong to greater ethnic and linguistic families? Sure I guess. Certainly can’t try that claim in most countries though. Most are low immigration, low minority counties. European counties are basically ethnostates that don’t come out and say it. But the numbers and immigration policies don’t lie.

There are almost 5 million Indians in the US so most of those languages and ethnicities would also be represented. US leads the world in current immigrant population at 50 million. 42 million Americans of African descent compared to 40 thousand in India. How can India be more diverse with such a small population from Africa, Europe or South America? All the thousands of ethnic groups in the US and to you they are all the same because they are just “Americans” now.

The Amazon one is funny. Probably including warehouse workers.

Because the US is one of the most racially diverse countries.

It’s easy for no one to notice racial issues in a homogeneous society. Nearly all countries in the world are basically ethnostates.