this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
265 points (95.2% liked)

interestingasfuck

9721 readers
781 users here now

For exceptionally interesting content

Rules:

  1. Posts must be interesting
  2. Posts must be based in reality
  3. No hateful content
  4. No harmful content
  5. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 26 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Every few years this comes up again, and every time some nonsense about colonialism or whatever is brought up.

There is no "true" size or "true" shape on a 2D projection of Earth's very 3D surface. We used the one projection for so long because of how coastal shapes don't get bent way out of proportion, but like with any projection, messes with the other aspects.

Rather than making spicy click bait titles every so often about the "true" projection of the Earth, how about we teach kids at school what it takes to project something 3D on a 2D surface?

And just use a fucking globe!

[–] Kobibi@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (4 children)

As a neurodivergent map person, I'm over-aware of the difficulties of map projection. And I agree that simply calling this new projection 'accurate' is misleading

But at the same time, the use of the Mercator as the standard default map in situations that have nothing to do with ocean navigation for literally hundreds of years is absolutely a reflection of the relative power of the Global North, and can't be dismissed as 'nonsense about colonialism'

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 minutes ago

The Mercator projection really seems to be Africa-centric if anything

[–] UnequalExchange@lemmy.world 2 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

so coming from you pleasr tell us what would be the best way to project an as accurate as possible world map? I mena both in 3D version and as a 2D version

[–] philipp_@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 59 seconds ago

A 3D version would be a globe. A 2D version is inherently inaccurate because it's 2D and the earth is not. You are free to pick your poison in the manner of your projection but you will always loose something.

[–] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Exactly. It's easy to brush off the idea of soft power but it has real consequences.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What better alternative projection they could use at the time for navigation?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You might note that the present is, in fact, not 500 years ago.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is that the answer to my question?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If you’re asking me to tell you the best way to navigate 500 years ago, I can’t help you because I’m not a historian. The point is that really has absolutely no bearing on how we should use maps today in the present.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

And the present doesn't affect the past.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

For political uses new projection is better. UN body are not going to use that to navigate.