[voltaireodactyl]

For my part, I always find it amusing when people from {the area in which the EU is dominant} hear a rhetorical comparison country-to-country and respond citing a major region from their part of the world.

It really underlines how massive the US is, and how hard that is for outsiders to truly comprehend.

[blitzar]

> It really underlines how massive the US is

Which is smaller than its poor neighbours to the north Canada.

If we go ahead and exclude the massive Alaska, the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia are about the size of Australia.

I guess it is hard for insiders to truly comprehend as well, perhaps objects just look bigger up close.

[voltaireodactyl]

> Which is smaller than its poor neighbours to the north Canada.

Indeed Canada does possess more territory — and yet the population remains concentrated almost entirely within 100 miles of the US Border(s). I find it drives home how much more thoroughly the US saturates the territory compared to countries of similar geographical size (which isn’t exactly the measure I was getting at — I was aiming for population density and sprawl — but does seem to be where other comment’s focus lies).

> If we go ahead and exclude the massive Alaska, the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia are about the size of Australia.

Again, I can certainly understand needing to impose random limits to reduce the scale and thereby assist with comprehension — but I’m not sure why we’d pursue that particular hypothetical. If we go ahead and exclude London, the UK becomes an island of farmers without means of export — but London exists, and so does Alaska, so it’s rather a moot point.

[blitzar]

> compared to countries of similar geographical size - I was aiming for population density and sprawl

ooo I cant wait till you find China and its similar geographic size to the US.

[voltaireodactyl]

> China and its similar geographic size to the US.

I would assume most people on Earth are aware of both China and the US; both countries are exceptional in the areas you’ve highlighted — thus why they, and they alone, are known as the world’s “superpowers”.

But regarding diversity of the population, which was the original point here, I think you’ll find the US remains at the forefront.

[blitzar]

Actually the original point was about policing policy in London, where the article in question is set.

A city where ~30% of the population were not born in the country and >40% are from ethnic minorities. Hardly culturally homogenous.

[voltaireodactyl]

> Actually the original point was about policing policy in London, where the article in question is set.

Apologies, I meant my original point, in responding to you here:

> Never been to london I take it. Its always funny when Americans comment on the rest of the world, maintaining the illusion with all their exceptional talent that they could, if needed, point to their own country on a map let alone find any other.

Apologies for not specifying; I rather thought the context would do the job for me! Relatedly:

> A city where ~30% of the population were not born in the country and >40% are from ethnic minorities. Hardly culturally homogenous.

Again (and for the final time), nobody is arguing that London is not a melting pot.

_My_ point -- as you keep repeatedly underlining on my behalf -- is that outsiders often try to compare the diversity present in the US with the diversity present in a singular city or region of their own home country, without understanding the degree to which the difference in scale, density, and spread serve to create a wholly different experience.

Hope that resolves any confusion!