> You base your State shapes on magnets and not cartographers?

You can see the transfer of a few square miles on a continent-scale map like the ones in the article?

The North/South Carolina border change represents about 700 sq miles changed over. The smallest state in the US is Rhode Island, with 1.2M sq miles - four orders of magnitude more. South and North Carolina are 30M and 50M sq miles respectively - five orders of magnitude more than this parcel of land.

Do you think that miniscule corrections every few decades are really enough to counter the author's claim that the state shapes were 'drawn in the distant past'? Seems excessively pedantic to me - especially since the shapes involved didn't change all that much.