True continent sizes

Contenents are generally bigger than countries yes.

Here's an actual continent size comparison Contenent sizes

Except, that your picture shows the continents in the usual Mercator projection distorted way. This type of projection makes countries nearer to the poles look way larger than they actually are.
- Antarctica is definitely not Mercator there!
  
  And finding a good projection for the entirety of Asia would be difficult.
  
  Now, using Mercator Russia in the OP image with Africa.... But I've already complained about that in two other crossposts ;-)
- here's a replica i just made using the equal earth projection
  
  and here's one using the authagraph projection
  
  i wanted to make one using the mollweide projection, but i couldn't find a good blank map with borders to use
  
  they're both poor work, but i don't want to put in the effort to fix them, and it's pretty funny imagining icelanders getting mad that i put them in north america
  
  both used blank world map images ripped from wikipedia plus getpaint.net

Why does this image use the numbers for the entire US but only shows the continental US?

Came to the comments section to say this too. The contiguous States should also look visually smaller than China next to them, so I think they've blown them up to represent the full 9.8m km².
Because if they were consistent or honest, they'd have to admit that the US is actuslly smaller than China (or Canada, which they chose to exclude).
- The US is bigger than China according to every source I found.

I'd really love to see what Africa would look like without randomly created colonial superstates. I know Atlas Pro did a video about that, but not sure how accurate that is.

Also what Europe if every people group with a unintelligible dialect had a nation. Like Catalan, Occitan, Romansh, Bavarian etc.. Where I live the people in the next village over officially speak the same language, but it's completely unintelligible. So not a different language for political reasons only really.

Same for India, if the British never came what countries would exist in that region? All the states pretty much have different languages, cultures, food, politics, etc so it's more like an EU with a common military
Also what Europe if every people group with a unintelligible dialect had a nation.

Papua New Guinea/Indonesia and Africa have like a thousand to a two thousand languages each, I think it'd be funnier doing that with them
In that case India would be a ton of tiny nations as well.

Interactive tool: thetruesize.com.

It's fun to see how the shapes and areas change while moved around and being reprojected.

I'm also interested in the true size comparison without the skewed size that occurs further and further from the equator when you make a flat, rectangular map from a sphere.

I'm not sure, but I assume they've used some equal-area projection for the representation, so its angles are skewed, not the size.
- Or just scaled the country images to match land area?

You're comparing countries to an entire continent. It's not surprising that the continent is larger.

TIL Europe is a country
- Americans often refer to Europe as if it's a country. We're used to it.

No offense, but in current economic system, since last 10 years, on average, what is the economic contribution of Africa compared to world?

Being underdeveloped in infrastructure and its original history and identity broken and exploited by the west and currently china.

I cant believe it’s doing well on economic output in comparison with those established exploiters.

Now on why the fuck is this rhetoric even relevant to a cool map guid in how our perspective of size on earth is distorted?
- I’m assuming the poster doesn’t speak English as a first language, so I’m hopeful it was a more innocent question than the racist dog whistle it seems like at first glance.
  
  I can see why one might be curious about the economic comparisons between different geographic spaces with vast sizes, even though it’s almost impossible to really answer.
Some of the fastest growing economies are in Africa. Some analysts view it as having the potential to be a core of productivity not too far in the future, especially given its demographic and natural resources.

But it’s a very diverse place, being a continent with many countries, so answering your question is very difficult. Can you be any more specific?
What does that question even have to do with the post?

And we're talking about the African continent. There are 54 African countries/nations. They have a combined GDP of $2.8 trillion USD, similar to France.
- 2.8T DOLLAR, that's right!
Every superpower is currently in a race to mine the natural resources. A lots gonna happen in the next ten years and I doubt much of it will be good for the average African.
- If Africans make the right choices, they'll definitely benefit and prosper. They see who has worked for them.
"no offense" lol and then you go on to ask a random ass question that's usually meant to offend. why are you bringing up GDPs in Africa anyway?

if you're actually trying to learn something, then what's the "no offense" for? it sounds like you want us to draw a controversial conclusion - probably that Africans are lazy or something. if you actually believe this and are behaving this way online, then there's probably no point in trying to explain how the consequences of colonization continue to hold back development in many African nations.

why don't you take your dogwhistles elsewhere, or at least learn some social cues. "no offense" is a pretty idiotic thing to say and might best be removed from your vocabulary. because, no offense, you sound like a fucking moron.