“This discussion is not a political discussion [but] a scientific discussion, because there is scientific proof so we all have to accept the reality,” he said.
Bit of a weird statement, haha. Of course it is political, the scientific reality is you cannot perfectly map a sphere to two dimensions… The political part is what we agree to sacrifice, and - in my opinion completely fairly - they want to take “relative land area” off the list of sacrifices.
I think it’s preemptively calling it out because Conservatives are absolutely going to make a map projection political
No, we’ve got some pretty good ones…
The map is made by equally dividing a spherical surface into 96 triangles, transferring it to a tetrahedron while maintaining area proportions, and unfolding it in the form of a rectangle: it is a polyhedral map projection. The map reduces the distortion of sizes and shapes of all continents and oceans, as inspired by the Dymaxion map. The projection does not have some of the major distortions of the Mercator projection, like the expansion of countries in far northern latitudes, and allows for Antarctica to be displayed accurately and in whole.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AuthaGraph_projection
If you try to make one part exact, the errors add up.
If you account for the differences at a small scale, then no area is exact, but everything is pretty much correct.
Wow, this map is very interesting and cool! But I must state the obvious: cardinal directions very much lose meaning on this one haha, not even just a little like in some other good candidates :) And yes, we don’t need precise latitudes and longitudes anymore in these days for every-day map use - hence it is even possible to talk about changing to a more “fair” projection - , but looking in a school room at this map and trying to identify with children which direction Mexico is to Cuba becomes non-trivial. This is also a form of sacrifice in this context, which of course is up to discussion.
The lines curve to the nearest pole.
So you can get a general direction of north/south.
But a “more local” map of even just a hemisphere can still be what we’re familiar with. The issue is how to get 100% of the surface of a sphere onto one flat page.
That problem disappears when zooming in. So using this projection for anything besides the whole planet doesn’t make much sense.
I mean, I’m not saying it’s easy to understand that there’s this for a global map and others for zoomed in maps, especially for an adult. But kids would pick it up quickly and understanding would build abstract thinking skills.
Equal Earth looks quite good imo
Africa really big
Let me guess, the US and Israel will vote against it.
Only the US voted no
You could have read it.
You are right, I misread the article. I believe the vote was set to happen, not that it had already taken place.
I really don’t care. But as far as i know. The landmass distortion on mercator is “corrected” by having boxes of “different sizes” across the map. Except that each box is actually respresenting the same km2
I don’t know what image on the article is about.
When looking into the eckert IV, this seems to be as accurate it gets
Which i think is quite good. It’s a good compromise between shape and landmass, by NOT projecting it on a rectangle.
Now compare this image, to the one in the article.
It looks so stupid how they’re trying to overlay them while removing the context from both.
i dunno, they both look pretty big to me
Yay, i get to post my favorite West Wing bit again!
Before watching:
“You can’t do that!”
“Why not?”
“Because it freaks me out!!”
Edit: Yep. That scene, but the last line is, “because it’s freaking me out!”
Well I don’t think they did that many specific ‘map bits’. Besides the ‘you absolutely can’t hang that map anywhere NEAR the Oval Office’ episode.
I forgot that President Bartlett smoked.
He only bummed that cigarette on Air Force One for a friend! I heard that from a reliable source.
Doesn’t matter, still a flat earth. Checkmate globetards /s
deleted by creator
The Obverse Peters Projection?
What would be a significant change if they do this?
I don’t think showing Africa larger will change one thing about how the rest of the world treats African nations.
Either way it seems irrelevant, so whatever floats your boat.
It’s about changing perceptions.
If you can minimize an entire continent, let alone a single country, as some “small place”, you can more easily shuffle them away as “trivial.”
You’re thinking about this too shallowly, as if all thoughts come in big blocks, instead of built up from the various iotas of data you filter through every second of every day.
