• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    An interesting comparison is Canada. Chile is about as long as Canada is wide, and most of Canada lives within a short distance of the US border, so the population distribution is similar to Chile’s.

    Chile rotated east-west instead of north-south superimposed over Canada

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It is a very thick but even taller strip of land.

      The point of reference for it’s thinness shouldn’t be it’s own height, but rather the sizes of countries in general.

      I mean, it’s still be thin, but the UK has no place throwing stones from within that glass house lol

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s not very thick, it is thin, but it’s extremely long. Chile that is.

        Not many countries outside of Europe are as small east-to-west as Chile. Even in Europe the major countries like France, Germany, Spain and even the UK are bigger east-to-west. Italy is bigger east-to-west, but mostly because it’s angled. If it were oriented vertically like Chile it would be thinner along most of the boot, but still wider than Chile along the top from the coast near Nice to Venice.

        Also worth noting that although the UK isn’t all that wide, it has major port cities on both east and west coasts. Chile has an inhospitable mountain range on its eastern side, so really the population is concentrated in an area that’s much thinner than the geographic boundaries of the country.

      • Noturbuddy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        It just looks skinny because of how long it is baby I promise it’s more than thicc enough for you 😏

      • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I feel like this is stretching the definition of “thin” to make sure nobody feels insecure about the proportions of the land claimed by local government.

        What are we doing here, folks?

  • A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    thin is a good description honestly, Snow in the Andes by the morning, and beach by the afternoon.

    I like it here 10/10, would be born here again.

  • gnu@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    Looks pretty thin to me:

    The narrow point is about as wide as driving to my nearest beach and that’s a reasonable day trip distance.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well they’re not wrong

    It’s enormous, but relatively speaking, a thin strip, yeah

  • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    2 days ago

    Looking at a map, Chile is a thin strip of land compared to all other South American countries, which is what makes sense to do because it makes it easily identifiable to everyone when they also look at a map.

  • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to “fit” a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m sorry, but at no point does Chile get too thin to fit a highway. It is just that part meets a gulf and wildlife territory. They are all national parks. The alternative (to going into Argentina or the ferry) would be to deforest hundreds of hectares and blow up mountains just so tourists get an scenic car ride (that is already pretty scenic and spectacular as it is).

      • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s why I put the “fit” in quotes. There is no space for a highway because of gulf, mountains and national parks, and that is a good thing.

        If it was wider they would have built a highway for sure.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I get what you meant. But it would be more apt to say that they don’t want a highway there, it’s not like it wouldn’t fit if they wanted. The whole thing is a biosphere reserve, new infrastructure is not allowed. It has nothing to do with the geographical wideness of Chile. To only have a ferry there is a choice. Bypassing through Argentina actually skips a good third of the official highway.

  • ApeNo1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    John Oliver on The Bugle podcast had the best description of its shape. “Chile. The country most likely to crack if baked into a biscuit.”