• piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours 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.

    • oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours 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?

        • spamspeicher@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours 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.

  • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    where is California in all this?

    why exclude Paris too?

    seems too arbitrary… what are the criteria?

  • voxthefox@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours 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)