you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (9 children)

The pedantic part of me wants to point out that every projection of a 3D object onto a 2D surface requires distortion

They literally say that in the article.

The distortion of his map is a result of the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent the surface of a globe on a two-dimensional chart. Whenever a map of the world is drawn, compromises need to be made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Right, so then why are they describing this as "correcting" the distortion, when in fact it is simply choosing a different version of distortion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Did you read the article? I think your questions/complaints are answered there.

    Tldr; the new map solves some distortions (to the tune of 14x) but also there’s a human element to this. It seems like an obvious and overdue improvement.

    Retaining an inferior map because they won’t be used for navigation is an odd defence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's a classic dumb argument: "if it wont solve it 100%, lets just leave it completely broken"

    These are the people most easily manipulated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    14 times more correct? Wow! So it's the correctest? Even though we've agreed that you have to make compromises to project the earth onto a plane and each one has tradeoffs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments