Just drag South America or Australia onto Africa and tell me it changed more than a few percent in size. Barely perceptible.
North America is not 21.3 but 24.7e^6 m^3 according to google, so the ratio is 4:3. Asia to Africa is 3:2
Arable in your stats just means cultivated, it isn't a measure of the natural productivity. People in Africa work poorer lands due to necessity.
North America has more non-desert land than Africa and produces 3x as much food. Asia nearly 10x food production. Europe 2x. Antarctica has no non-desert land and Australia has very little. Asia has the most by a long way. This lines up pretty well with each continent's historical economic significance.
Regarding 'small Africa' conspiracy - I have never not been told that Africa is a huge continent. Documentaries, podcasts, TED talks, movies, Top Gear, books, atlases (they all have multiple projections btw), globes, video games. Five weeks in a balloon? I may have consumed well over 100 hours of media romanticizing the vast scale of Africa. Colonialists had no reason to conceal it either - selling big Africa investment (exploitation) opportunities was their business model
This is a Mandela effect moment for me. Or maybe it's an American education thing?
No its just people lying. I remember being told 30 years ago that a flat map and a globe make countries look different since a kid asked why continenents looked different when we were looking at a globe
From quickly reading their source this morning, it does not seem to scale well.
on-disk git repo's, and postgres for everything else (with objects on cloudflareR2 or GCP?)
And I wouldn't call 29.6 <> 21.3 a little smaller, Africa is 39% bigger than North America.
reply