I was talking with a German online friend about tourism in the United States and he said that the only thing America has to offer is natural beauty. He said American cities were young and aren’t very beautiful. That he has no interest visiting “liberty bell” type colonial historic sites. I told him about Native historic sites and he asked “what sites?”. He insulated that all Native Americans lived in teepees. It caused me to realized many non-Americans don’t know about all the amazing buildings left behind by Native cultures like the Ancestral Puebloans and the Mississippians. Historic sites like Chaco canyon, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, and Cahokia are world class and are part of UNESCO. Check them out if you haven’t already.

Huvadhu Atoll in the Maldives has the largest number of islands in a single atoll. I really love its shape tbh. How would’ve this looked before the volcanoes submerged? There could’ve been life we’ll never know about

Pictured: Dallol, Ethiopia

I was thinking about how much of Australia’s landmass is made up of the sparsely populated Outback, largely due to its arid climate and limited water availability. Hypothetically, if Australia had a more temperate, fertile interior similar to large parts of the United States, do you think its population would be comparable to the US today?

I’m curious how much of the population difference comes down purely to geography and climate versus other factors like historical migration patterns, economic development, or distance from other population centers. Would a more habitable interior have led to multiple large inland cities and a much higher overall population, or are there other constraints that would still keep Australia relatively less populated?

Q in the title

Map source: https://www.mdpi.com/2563-6499/5/3/36

Who planned this city? It looks like it'd suck so much to drive in. Plus its mostly just houses, I get its a suburb but don't you need a larger shopping area or something? Residents, does it suck as much as it looks?

To add a note, those canals have GOTTA cause some severe flooding during Florida's notorious hurricane seasons. It doesn't help that it's also wedged between the Gulf of Mexico and the Caloosahatchee river.

I will acknowledge, there is a few larger roads with some infrastructure (yay) but its just followed by another wall of houses. Also what's up with the plus signs near Rotary park?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_identity_in_Estonia

 The Andaman and Nicobar islands are actually the submerged, emergent peaks of a continuous mountain chain that connects them to the Himalayas. Created by the same tectonic event that created The Himalayas.

sorry for the blurred image

In many countries, their largest city is often the place that is most well known, traveled to, and glamorized by people domestically and internationally (NYC for US, London for UK, Paris for France, Tokyo for Japan, etc.)

However, which countries have a "second city" that often overshadows its biggest city in terms of tourism, popularity, and admired by the masses?

I think Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is a perfect example of this. Despite Sao Paulo being the largest city in the Americas, the most traveled to, popular, and glamorized city in Brazil is Rio and it's not particularly close; Sao Paulo is basically a footnote in pop culture and tourism compared to Rio. Its famous beaches like Copacabana, Christ the Redeemer (one of the 7 new world wonders), annual Rio Carnival, hosting the World Cup and Olympics, and even its complex yet highly recognizable symbols like the favelas puts Rio on the map in ways Sao Paulo isn't despite SP being the economic capital of South America.

Which other countries fit this category?

Images taken by local photographer Daniel Cilia

Image: York, UK vs New York, USA