r/TikTokCringe 1d ago

Cool New world map

@modernday_eratosthenes

Upvotes

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

u/Dr__America 23h ago

This is what people call "virtue signaling". Literally how is saying "this is our new official projection" at the UN any different from Trump renaming bodies of water to try to appeal to his base?

They both do next to nothing and only morons are influenced by it, especially those without any ability to look at any other possible source of data (such as a different map, or a globe for that matter).

It wasn't worth voting on at all, Idc who abstained, voted yes, or voted no.

u/eqasinus 23h ago

Reflecting the true size of countries is for me a more important property of an official UN map than representing latitudes and longitudes as straight lines. It’s of course not the most important issue, but it’s also not pointless in my opinion.

u/Eldritch_Horns 20h ago

It doesn't represent the land masses accurately. You can literally see the projection distorting the further north you go.

It does it better than Mercator, but it doesn't do it well. And it sacrifices so much more.

It's a bad projection and this is pointless virtue signalling.

If you wanted an accurate projection, you'd use something like cahill keyes.

That's about as balanced a projection is going to get.

u/eqasinus 19h ago edited 19h ago

I‘m not an expert in projections. I only wanted to add that I get why a map that represents areas more realistically might be preferable to a map that represents cardinal directions better, especially for organizations like the UN. What (apart from warped cardinal directions) does it sacrifice in comparison to Mercator?

And I know that there are projections that better represent true areas. But I guess there‘s also a benefit in having the map itself in a more „digestible“ format (e.g., square or oval-shaped) and not to break with all familiarities (that is, roughly, Americas left, Europe/Africa center, Asia and Oceania right, at least in the „western world“)? Equal Earth sticks to those principles but represents area better than Mercator, so I guess it’s a compromise?

u/Eldritch_Horns 16h ago

Here's Trissot's Indicatrix of ee and Mercator and cahill keyes

Mercator was prized for so long because it keeps the rhumb lines straight. Which is mainly for circumnavigation, as you say.

But it also maintains the shape of the countries. This seems so much more important to me than their landmass volume. Especially considering landmass volume isn't a useful measure of anything.

The brass tacks of this all is that if you wanted to best reprisent volume of land, not distort the shapes to an unrecognisable degree and represent the earth as close to accurately as you can on a 2D plane, you would choose a projection like cahill keyes.

Ee does little well. It distorts the view of the landmasses. Stretching out everything close to the equator and squashing everything north or south of it.

No projection is perfect, but ee is pretty bad.

u/eqasinus 15h ago

Very interesting! For the UN I still think that equal-area maps are a valid choice, but I do get the cons better now, thank you!

u/Eldritch_Horns 15h ago

So the arctic and antarctic are generally where all projections fall apart.

Greenland has always been the sore thumb of Mercator for example. But it distorts far less than a projection like ee.

u/eqasinus 15h ago

Sorry, just deleted that part of my comment again, wasn’t sure if it made sense.

But yeah, that was basically my question, thanks!

u/Eldritch_Horns 15h ago

You're good. No worries