Whenever a rich country is discussed, parellerly, their high cost of living also gets mentioned.

For example, Canada is rich, but also notoriously famous for their extremely high cost of living.

I am talking about countries that are rich, but has a "sustainable" or "affordable" cost of living EVEN IN THEIR BIG CITIES.

And by rich I mean countries that have atleast 0.750 or higher HDI and is relatively stable and has a relevance on world stage.

Zealandia, also known as Te Riu-a-Māui (Māori) or Tasmantis (from Tasman Sea), is an almost entirely submerged mass of continental crust in Oceania that subsided after breaking away from Gondwana 83–79 million years ago.

It has been described variously as a submerged continent, continental fragment, and microcontinent. Today, most of the landmass (94%) remains submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean.

New Zealand is the largest part of Zealandia that is above sea level, followed by New Caledonia.

A land exchange was proposed between Serbia and the partially recognized state of Kosovo to make their border run along ethnic lines.

The territorial exchange was generally discussed to involve a transfer of the Preševo Valley of Serbia with an ethnic Albanian majority to Kosovo and the pass of the majority ethnic Serb region of North Kosovo of Kosovo to Serbia.

What do you think? 🇷🇸🇽🇰

I believe Syria and Venezuela are some examples of these countries. Syria hit hard in 2011 from the war. Syria went from 0.687 to 0.544 HDI in a span of three years. As same for Venezuela which went from 0.771 to 0.690, but on a slower span of time.

Texas and Florida have their widely known panhandles, however Virginia never gets talked about when regarding them. Is there a reason? Is it not considered one?

If you wanna list all of them go ahead, but feel free to give whatever you feel is notable.

This was prompted by my friend being surprised I knew where Alligator Pond, Jamaica, was.

For millennia, it was believed that the source of the Nile River was a mountain range known as the "Mountains of Moon". The existence of these mountains was first attributed to an ancient greek merchant by the name of "Diogenes" ( not that Diogenes ) who described them as being greater than the Alps.

In 1770, the Scottish explorer James Bruce claimed to have found the Mountains of the Moon. He claimed that they were indeed greater than the Alps and bisected the whole of Africa. He also claimed that the highest peak was known to the locals as "Mount Amedamit". Bruce's records went on to be the basis of this now defunct 1805 map made by cartographer: John Cary.

https://preview.redd.it/8lxl0dvv69yc1.jpg?width=2163&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f32ac5ddc4713006e829173f3e872ec3eb62ebd

As you may be able to tell, John Cary's map not only features the Mountains of the Moon but also two other fictitious mountain ranges, these being the "Mountains of Kong" which are connected to the Mountains of the Moon and the "Lupata Mountains" AKA "The Spine of the World" which span across the coast of East Africa.

I'm wondering how different the geography of Africa would be if these mountains existed.

Since the map provides no sense of scale, I'll make my own. Let's say that the Mountains of Kong/The Moon have a scale, prominence and average elevation comparable to the Andes and "Mount Amedamit" is Africa's highest peak with a height of 22,341 feet above sea level.

In this concept, the Lupata Mountains would be extensions of Mount Kilimanjaro, they would have a similar distance to the coast and their scale, prominence and average elevation would be in the 18,000-19,000 foot range, thus making them greater than the Rockies, Sierra Nevada's or Cascades.

How do you think the existence of these mountains would change Africa's geography? Would Africa be better or worse.

Recently, Google released a new Photorealistic 3D tech, which allows you to see the world in realistic 3D. When I saw this, I knew I had to make a geography game based around it, the potential for a fun, educational experience was so high!

The game is called EarthChasers, and in the game you get placed somewhat on the Earth, and you have to fly around to guess where you are. You can zip between buildings, view castles from every angle, and zoom into volcanoes to look for clues!

I'm super excited about it, and if you do give it a try we are open to any feedback or ideas for how it can be improved :)

I’m currently in year 12 and beginning the process of deciding which course and which university to apply for. The subjects I do at sixth form are business, geography and social anthropology, I find human geography wayyyyyy more interesting than physical geography, and I’m kinda crap at science. How different actually are the BA and BSc (and what are the main difference), does it actually matter which one I get a degree in, and which one would you recommend I do?

Thanks for any responses in advance

I played the game and went to look at the least popular answers and it lists Cameroon as a landlocked state when Cameroon is definitely not a landlocked country.

Lets say you have a set track that goes around the earth at the same rate as it spins so that it is constantly directly under the sun and noon on the train. The train goes through boston and its noon on a sunday, it keeps up with the sun and goes through seattle and its noon on a sunday. Assuming the train never stops and its always noon, at what point does it stop being noon on a sunday? Does it just become noon on a monday once a line is crossed? Where?

https://preview.redd.it/tmva78cs7ayc1.png?width=2162&format=png&auto=webp&s=a127aa53699ecd7e1e042235f1acc52d6a593ad2

do the rivers actually stop along this border or are the rivers just not drawn in timor leste?