I would definitely not divide it into 2 big and all the rest way smaller. I would say 4 medium to big, the rest way smaller.
The netherlands for instance is nearly 95.000 times bigger than vatican city!! Or for a little less extreme comparison (because comparing to vatican gives everything huge numbers) it is 131 times larger than Malta (compared to less than 6 times smaller than the UK, so definitely closer to the bigger ones on the scale)
Luxembourg isnt tiny, but still quite small it is sort of inbetween ish but decided to put it with the small ones, it is 8 times bigger than malta but 12 times smaller than belgium, so closer to the smaller ones.)
He is saying that the population of 1 square kilometer with the Vatican City's density is greater than the population of the Vatican City. I found this fascinating as well, Corrode.
The population density in people per square kilometre is numerically higher than the population. But the population density and the population do not share the same units so one cannot be said to be intrinsically higher than the other.
Also kalbahamut it isn't anything like saying that. It is more like saying that my age is greater than my weight. It depends heavily on what units you use.
he's not using different units. The unit is people. And 1,818 * 0.44 is 799, or the same exact number often given for the Vatican's total population. He can only say that it is higher by ignoring the "/km2"
I find that those who scoff at or ridicule others who correct false information are frequently the same ones who enjoy spreading false information themselves, and deserve to be scoffed or ridiculed.
It also means that the Vatican normally has around 2 popes per square kilometre. Just to confound this, it currently has around 4 popes per square kilometre if we include emeritus..
Me too. It's the only one of the micronations missing. I imagine that, because it's smack in the middle of the mountains, it can't accommodate a high population density.
But Liechtenstein is also in the middle of the mountains. Andorra is actually about 3 times bigger than Liechtenstein in area but less than twice as many people.
Compared with Andorra, Liechtenstein is green and flat. Andorra always feels to me like an arbitrary area right in the middle of some mountains. Everything is a snowy slope or a congested road. Or, of course, both.
Not really if you compare it to other cities. Being a city state it is just the city, unlike countries that can have rural areas between cities. Dhaka for instance is more than twice as densely populated than monaco. (to name a few other that are more densely populated, mumbai, cairo delhi, tokyo. And all of them are much bigger, so more impressive to be that densely populated)
Shows how consistently dense the uk and Germany are. Especially considering that Scotland wales and Northern Ireland are fairly sparse, England has 55 million people in a fairly small area.
How is the uk consistently dense if like you say yourself scotalnd, wales and northern ireland are not densely populated? Not distributed equally at all, more than 80% of the population of the Uk live in england.
Things change fast. Netherlands are already above 500/km² density. Vatican city dropped to about 2000, and Monaco Is above 26000 now. The others actually stayed nearly the same (about 10/km² max, so negligible).
I missed Vatican City because I knew that its population is smaller than 1827 but I forgot that it has a surface area that is smaller than a square kilometre.
The netherlands for instance is nearly 95.000 times bigger than vatican city!! Or for a little less extreme comparison (because comparing to vatican gives everything huge numbers) it is 131 times larger than Malta (compared to less than 6 times smaller than the UK, so definitely closer to the bigger ones on the scale)
Luxembourg isnt tiny, but still quite small it is sort of inbetween ish but decided to put it with the small ones, it is 8 times bigger than malta but 12 times smaller than belgium, so closer to the smaller ones.)
Now seriously, great quiz!