Half Alaska's population live in 3 cities: Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau (state capital).
You can't reach the state capital by road.
Indigenous peoples in Alaska are collectively referred to as Alaska Native - and make up 15% of the state population.
9% of the state population are combat veterans.

mainly because Rhode Island was one of the first of the 13 first colonies in America, while Alaska, although very big, is also quite cold, and that not a lot of people wanted to go there, until the Klondike gold rush, when about 100,000 people traveled there for gold.

There is a system of measurement used by the news industry in the United States, wherein the basic unit of measurement is the football field (as in, a new public building which is as big as two football fields). The next unit up is the rhode island, then the texas, and then the alaska. Some versions also have the michigan and the california. They don't teach this system in school, but I once sat down and figured out how many football fields make one rhode island, but I can't find that note right at the moment.

And it's hardly surprising that Rhode Island is more densely populated than Alaska, considering that historically most of our population has arrived on the East Coast, and a fraction of those arrivals moved west while most stayed where they landed. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the first eight most densely populated states are in the East, whereas the least are in the West, apart from Alaska. The West Coast isn't a whole lot better, with California being #11, Washington #24, and Oregon #39. Another fun fact: The population density of Alaska is half a person per square kilometer. (｀_´)ゞ

Also, Alaska is more or less what you get if you moved Australia up near the North Pole. Most of its population is concentrated along the coasts, while the inland areas of the state are, as it were, the sub-arctic version of the Outback, only with polar bears instead of dingoes.

@uktana Sad to say, the new measurement system you're describing is probably better than the old imperial system you're currently using.
I just wish you'd advance to the 19th century with the rest of us, and adopt the SI system.

@Tjalve So do I, although we have come more than half way already: most products these days have the weight or volume noted in both avoirdupois and metric systems, and since carbonated drinks are regularly sold in "two-liter bottles", everyone knows how much a liter is, whether they realize it or not. Also, a "fifth" of alcohol is exactly 750ml now, and not one fifth of a gallon (757.48ml) like it used to be; footraces are measured in meters and kilometers; and any news about science usually gives measurements in both system (usually metric first, then avoirdupois in parentheses); and anyone who works with machinery has a set of tools in both systems, because so much of our machinery is made overseas.

So we're getting there inch by inch , and it's better to let it seep in a little at a time rather than trying to change from the top down. We're somewhere in the Star Trek universe mentality right now, where you might hear this line: "The alien vessel is approaching, and is now at a distance of approximately 500 kilometers. . . Wow, look at the size of that thing, it must be a hundred miles wide!"

@uktana I think the best way forward is to do what we did when we got metricized. We basically metricized the old units.
We still sell butter in marks, even though people don't realize it. And the mileage of cars is measured by litres per mile. But not english miles, of course. We measure distance by both km and mile, although the swedes use miles a lot more than we do.

So you should simply define the gallon to be 4 litres, define the pound to be half a kg, and so on. That way people would start using the metric system, without even knowing it.

@Tjalve I have to say though, living in the States as an imigrant, I'm impressed that the younger generation Americans are pretty good in converting numbers. I guess they're more flexible than the older people here.

@uktana It spills over up into Canada as well - most of us who have dealt with shipping goods between the US and Canada have to be semi-fluent in both systems, and cold chain monitoring for food is still predominantly measured in °F. My pet peeve is when they "metricize" units of length. What is "6.8 feet" or "1.2 inches"? PICK ONE!

@khrispy The word you were looking for is "decimalization", but I definitely agree, 6.8ft doesn't really make sense

@khrispy "1.2" inches at least makes some sense if you take into account that, at least from what I know, it's the smallest length unit they have, so they have to fractionalize or decimalizate it for lengths that don't manage to fit the base unit. The feet thing, however, is plain stupid in the frame of the metric system used.

@uktana
That appropriation with Australia kinda helped. Huh. Most civilisations are near the coast, but it's drastic in such a large country as Australia, with least than 25.000.000 people.

@uktana

**applause**

In this case, size doesn't matter

"The next unit up is the rhode island, then the texas, and then the alaska. Some versions also have the michigan and the california. "

This is HOGWASH! Yes, people here do SOMETIMES use a football field as a comparison for size. I've never heard of the others being used though. In general, we tend to use driving times to measure distance. "It's an hour's drive away" means about 60-75 miles, depending on the traffic. (Highway speeds assumed)

Sort of makes sense though. Alaska is cold.

I got a sugar high and a great idea.....

wow

Guess which state crosses the Arctic Circle? >.>
(Really, it's a wonder over 700,000 people are willing to live somewhere that cold... and this is a Canadian speaking!)

True:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density