France also has the longest internal scheduled flight - 9,349km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_longest_domestic_fli...

I'm glad someone did this, because for a moment I was thinking that I was going to have to do the math on France.

It's funny because you can't measure borders due to the coastline paradox.

For those wondering, it's Brazil.

The other funny thing is the land border with Netherlands ... in the Caribbean.

> That said, it's unlikely that the entity currently managing .io (a hedge fund if I'm not mistaken) has the legal muscle to force ICANN to keep it in the list

ICANN periodically lets anyone with $1 million create random new generic TLDs like .top and .win and .google and .hiv and .amazon and .zip - it's pretty clear there aren't any real rules or standards for TLDs apart from having money.

Why should ICANN break things for .io and its users, when they could instead keep things working, and extract $1M from a hedge fund, at the same time?

Am I the only one who sees no upside whatsoever in sunsetting a well-established, widely used, reasonably operated TLD?

To my mind, the only reason to unregister a TLD would be the TLD falling into disuse (the registrar having gone incomunicado, too-level DNS servers unmaintained, etc), and nobody agreeing to pick it up at the price of a new TLD ($1M?).

There is a lot of money to be made from the .io domain. My guess is that it will continue to exist as some kind of gTLD. Google already treats it like that.

Why is not using .gb a mistake? The official name of the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Great Britain is the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. The UK also contains Northern Ireland. It would be nonsensical (technically) for Northern Irish businesses to have domains ending in .gb

> It should eventually get removed by ICANN, since the country code TLDs are managed by ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (it's however not an exact match), and the transfer will mean the British Indian Ocean Territories will no longer exist. ISO is going to be the entity in charge of removing the io country code, which it probably will do since ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 isn't just used for domain names.

Side note: I suspect the real reason Google wants to discontinue goo.gl links is because they believe Trump will eventually succeed in annexing Greenland to the US.

They voted 3 times to stay with France. At a certain point, you have to admit independence is a minoritarian position.

This is also a vote where people who had recently moved (e.g. in the last 30 years) to New Caledonia were ineligible to vote (including people born on New Caledonia if their parents couldn't vote). If Quebec had had similar restrictions on the franchise, they would have easily become independent from Canada.

Burning cars and rioting after the last three referendums (which had excluded 100k people who had arrived after 1998) didn't go your way is sure a way to get ahead in politics.

Also what would be your proposed solution? Make the island be independent and let the Kanak expulse anyone who isn't like them? Because such blood and soil were usually spouted by people wearing brown shirts in Europe in the 30s.

Over simplification.

By that argument, Americans can leave the US right now and give it back to the original inhabitants of the country.

Various parties want more autonomy in New Caledonia which France is more than ready to give. The process is somewhat sabotaged by a tiny group of Marxist but it is moving in the right direction.

Like anything, it depends on your point of view and time.

My grandparents and their generation were all born in Ireland, and had a very different outlook than the people who remained and folks you talk to today there. People just want to live their lives.

It depends on which Indian state you were from. South Indian states like Travancore were allied with the British Empire and signed a treaty that brought it under British influence. Travancore was facing extinction from Islamic conquerors - Tippu Sultan.

Travancore and British forces defeated Tippu Sultan which resulted in the Treaty of Seringapatam (1792).

Travancore was extremely prosperous under the Britsh Empire and was given special status. The same could not be said of the Northern Indian states which faced heavy subjugation and exploitation by the East India Company.

Some Indians benefitted, but the vast majority suffered.

The brits took India from a variety of different rulers, but principally the Mughals. The Mughals werent any one thing, but they were despised in a lot of places.

The brits also largely permitted the caste system to proceed. my experience is that upper caste indians preferred the brits, where the lower caste ones dont really discern the difference.

So you found 1 person 30 years ago to justify colonialism?

of course i'm sincere, and obviously India is infinitely better off today, and the best parts of India are the British Tradition

Maturing is realizing that the Cardassians and Klingons are the only serious races on Star Trek.

I envy your level of introspection.

Rather surprising then that we have the Commonwealth of 56 member states, most of which were former territories of the British Empire from which the Commonwealth developed. They are connected through their use of the English language and cultural and historical ties. Doubtless these countries have appalling memories of the evils perpetrated by the Brits. And yet they even accept Charles III as the head of the Commonwealth. Also amazing that in most colonies independence was achieved without a shot being fired.

Unbelievable eh? Maybe it's a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

On the other hand it could have been worse. We should remember that for almost every colonized people, the alternative to British Jurisdiction was not unmolested progress towards modernity but conquest by someone else, the French, the Germans,the Turks, the Russians,the Japanese and worst of all, the Belgians.

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

> Britain owes a debt to its colonies. The colonies owe nothing to it, except contempt.

There's pretty clearly a distinction between different individual colonies on this one. Something like the Falkland Islands which had no indigenous population is very very different from Jamaica which was a plantation colony full of slaves, which is yet again very different something like Aden (now part of Yemen) which had about 600 people living there at the time it was annexed and which has had a very very difficult post-independence story.

> The colonies owe nothing to it, except contempt.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand did alright, though.

United States too in a way (i.e. I doubt it would be what it is now if the same territory was colonized by the Spanish or even the French. Of course unless you were Native American…).

in many ways they are carrying on the British tradition

common law, sanitation, industrialization, administration, diplomacy, record keeping, archeology , business culture, tea culture, etiquette, economics, trade & maritime science -- I could name 50 more.

Yeah. I'm from Malaysia, and while we definitely benefited in many ways, to state that we do not still have massive and pervasive social issues as a result of colonization is insane. I'm glad you posted the link above and spoke up. I didn't even know where to start, but was worried someone might take the original comment seriously.

what point are you making?

So India gets the praise and the British Empire gets the blame? And how about Since '47? Are you taking the same critical approach?

Every great regime will experience crisis. But you have to ask yourself -- where would I have been otherwise?

Indians are still clamoring to get into this supposedly genocidal regime.

it's a fair argument, and tips the scales a bit, but the balance is still overwhelmingly in favor

It's not like Ireland and Wales are doing much to preserve their legacies regardless. So it's hard, as an outsider, to intuit how much they actually care.

Wales and in a large part Ireland were conquered long before British Empire was a thing, though.

Some friends and I started playing Crusader Kings 2 recently. If anyone wants a thorough education in the weirdness of feudal monarchy, I highly recommend it, half the game is manipulating weird inheritance laws/scenarios to grow your holdings.

Much like how one of the princes of Andorra is the same person who is president of France.

Is that true?

“”” Charles III, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. “””

So in my head canon, he is the King of the UK and Canada … the same person and the same office. Ie there is no King of Canada officially - the title is always King of UK (first) and of other places as well … in short whilst Canada has a King, there is not a title “King Of Canada” that he can hold as well as holding “king of UK”

Do you have different rules for succession to where it might eventually be a different person?

If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...

The King also works remotely from home with only the occasional trip in...

Coincidentally, that has been true for a while, through multiple kings/queens of Canada.

I guess the Axiom of Extensionality doesn’t apply to kings. Interesting.

There is an even more pedantic objection to your claim: there is no such person as the “King of England”; this is like saying Donald Trump is the President of California.

Exactly. Isn't it strange that the Queen of England, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia ALL died on the same day? WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers.

The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).

Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy.

In practice Taylor Swift might have more.

If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession.

Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.

In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...

In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.

The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)

I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.

Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.

Canada is no longer part of the British Empire. Neither is the US, since the end of the War of Independence. That’s what independence means.

King Charles holds the title of King of Canada!

[dead]

No, it’s not symbolic of anything. The reality is that the UK has long been relegated to the status of a non-world power, but still acts as if it is one by clinging onto its colonial past.

This reminds me of an interview with the CCP spokesperson from last year when asked about how China sees the UK (timestamped): https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240

The UK offered residence with a path to citizenship for all BNO holders in Hong Kong, which was pretty much the limits of the UK's power. What are we going to do? Invade Hong Kong? Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China (Scotch whisky?)

As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.

There's no realistic way for the UK or anyone else to guarantee Hong Kong political freedom short of war with China.

How would the UK have kept Hong Kong if China didn't want them to? Would an invasion have been better for the people of Hong Kong? How would the UK have won that battle from that far away?

‘Protect the people of hong Kong’?

You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?

Protect the people of Hong Kong from what?

The idea that the British were holding territory in the world to protect anyone is laughable

Are you aware the UK is basically bankrupt? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/26/more-pain-r...

The British Commonwealth isn't entirely different from the Barbarian Kingdoms -- a lot of the political structure (elections to a Parliament modelled on Westminster, a nominally apolitical civil service) have been largely retained, and even almost a century after the Statute of Westminster the Commonwealth countries routinely look to the British for leadership in matters of foreign relations.

History doesn't repeat, but I think we're well into the realm of history rhyming here.

Virtually ever state today has more in common with Western States in the 19th century than their political predecessors. It would correct to say that we are "Western Cores" with X cultural skin than the opposite. Within that core, whether it's common law, parliamentary systems, or even beachgoing as a recreational activity, the British contributed major parts that define our day to day life.

Hmmm. Canada, NZ, Australia and even SA are all pretty darn "British," to this Commonwealth citizen.

In some small sense the British Empire lives on through the US hegemony. The British were experts at replacing local governments with people they could control, and since the Second World War we have tried doing the same thing.

America? the Anglosphere? the improvements to India? The almost complete eradication of slavery? The web? The British Empire arguably has a greater legacy than the Roman Empire.

That's right, though I don't want to undersell the massive levels of suffering and trickery played by the British. Their stock in trade was to sow ethnic division and steal whatever they could. For example, the million+ that died in the partition of India was a result of their sowing of tensions between Hindus and Muslims. They also did a lot of looting in Africa.

Going back in time, if you read about the Duchess of Sutherland, the UK created their own internal Nakba where they internally displaced peasants to make way to "Sheepe Walks" and forced them to the sea to benefit the textile industry. Then they later wanted that land and attacked them again. The West is very familiar with creating Gaza-like situations.

> It does not have many problems that most other western countries do not also have.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think those problems are?

Hm. I asked openly for information to change my opinion - show data, examples, anything - and you attack my character.

I get the largest amount of my news from Bloomberg. And you think I need to get laid. I have no issues with women or mental health.

This entire exchange, especially with your reply - means I’m right on the money!

I will find a way to short the UK. It’s all been going downhill since WWII, and the population alive hasn’t the gruff to fix the backslide.

Yes. Sorry. Get them mixed up.