this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
72 points (88.3% liked)

Map Enthusiasts

5136 readers
1 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

where is California in all this?

~~why exclude Paris too?~~

seems too arbitrary… what are the criteria?

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

I assume they intentionally left out some to round out the numbers a bit and hit 50% in a more interesting way without over half of it being the US.

[–] huppakee@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Paris is included, but not the regions south of it:

Regions of France Map

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nantes is wheat fields 🤔 all of Normandy and Brittany too

my bad, for paris i had to zoom a little bit more

It includes paris. and the rest is like mostly wheats fields so that’s why it didn’t get included

[–] grahamja@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

The other 50%, it is on the west side of the United States.

[–] voxthefox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago

This could probably get a lot smaller if they went by city statistics instead of state, 80% of Texas is essentially rural land/desert very little people live in.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Doesn't include the world's fourth-largest economy ... so what's the criteria here?

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The criteria is they add up to 50%

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Which 50%? Not the top x economies it takes to add-up to at least 50%, so, random countries/states/provinces that happen to add up to 50% ... ?

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

yep, that would pass the criteria

Plausibly it's trying to minimise land area with some degree of contiguity so it's not just picking random cities though. India's economy isn't much bigger than the 5th or 6th economy while having substantially more territory and population.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head with "contiguity", and that alone makes this look so wrong to me. I mean, including Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia? China's Entire Coast, but NOT Taiwan?

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yes. That way they could make a map and get updoots

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think they factored in GDP per square mile, plus a constraint that it should be a contiguous area per region and probably another constraint that they wanted to highlight an area in North America, Europe and Asia.

[–] spamspeicher@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] spamspeicher@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago

Ah, OK. I thought you meant on a country scale. I don't think there are any rules, just an interesting looking map.

India should be included too, its 5th on the list. Instead there are these small European countries.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I highly doubt west Virginia and Alabama are pulling their weights here

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, I just looked up Alabama's GDP, and it's similar to the country of Portugal.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It should come to no suprise, alabama's economy is proped up by the fed. The biggest employers is Redstone arsenal and Anniston Army Depot and all the support industries around them.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

Why are only part of the named countries colored?

[–] BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So it correlates to the major urban population centers of the 1st world...? Makes sense.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Most of them, it excludes the American west coast while including the poorest regions in the country (Appalachia and the deep south, neither of which can really be considered developed)