this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
913 points (98.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5740 readers
1052 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Isn't there a flat map where the actual scale is kept intact? That fucker looks so weird when you've been taught the other one your whole life. It's like planetary dysmorphia.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] lemann@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fascinating, thanks for sharing!

Australia and China are absolutely massive, wow. They look deceptively small on most maps 🤯

[–] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is what us Aussies have been trying to say! We're not that much smaller than the contiguous USA. Yet so often online people act like we're this tiny island. It's just our population that's tiny by comparison.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm from the US, and I've always pictured Australia as a place nearly the land area of the lower 48 states, with people along the coasts and one city right in the middle.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

In the US, we assume the difference in population is due to attrition due to dropbear attacks. We're not entirely sure where we got that information, but it seemed pretty reliable.

[–] ChewTiger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's a cool site, thank you for sharing it!

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Effectively no. Any projection of a spherical surface into 2D will distort it in some way. If I understand correctly, the Mercator projection (which I think is what we're looking at) is a cylindrical projection, which preserves latitude but severely distorts longitude near the poles.

I do know that aeronautical charts are conical projections, which is fairly distortion free for the relatively small area they cover, but you can't lay more than a few of them edge to edge before things stop lining up.

[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You have distort some thing. Scale or directions. The one most people use keeps directions constant. Ie a 45 degree line between North and east will akways point due northeast no matter where it is.

Contrast that with a map that cuts out large triangle sections or naos that have tge equator wider then poles. These maps make true northeast variable.

[–] Jimbob0i0@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, it's not possible to take a 3D surface and to transpose it onto a 2D plane without any distortion.

[–] snowsuit2654@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is true. There are some projections that show area more accurately, or shape of landmasses, etc.

For example:

Many map projections do one thing well at the cost of sacrificing others. For example, the popular Mercator projection (which you'll see in many US schools and textbooks) is well suited for marine navigation but is exceptionally distorted the closer you get to the poles.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I kinda like how the Kavrayskiy VII projection looks. It appears to preserve both the area and the shape fairly well.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

this kind of projection is my favourite, it just looks like a map that belongs on a wall

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

is well suited for marine navigation but is exceptionally distorted the closer you get to the poles.

Which makes perfect sense for its use case - navigating from Belgium, Portugal and Spain to Africa, India and Central and South America.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can easily do it without distortion. The issue is continuity. You'd have to make cuts and effectively unwraped the globe like you would a 3D sphere. Some countries might literally be cut in half, but it would at least be accurate

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There will still be distortion, just less. The more cuts, the less distortion. But you can't make an unwrapped sphere lay perfectly flat.

Erm, yes you can, just run it through the infinite-cuts device!

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Or without chopping it up in an odd way rather than a rectangle.

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My fucking..

UV MAPS

AGGGGGHHHHH

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

There are many different world maps, and some have an intact scale. But they lack in other ways.

Map Men has a good video about it:

https://piped.video/watch?v=jtBV3GgQLg8

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

No, but there are several better projections. The Mercator is a nautical chart, it was never intended to be used as a general purpose map of the world but for some reason it's used that way.