[Image: A map drawn according to the Fuller Projection in which the continents are accurately sized and not distributed according to northern and southern hemispheres but are actually projected as if seen from above, make them very closely grouped together and more accurately sized.]
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the Fuller Projection?
This map presents a world that is nearly contiguous and at accurate sizes and shapes to the continents.
And there is no “correct” orientation for it (the directionality of north/south being arbitrary after all )
The downsides are that it cuts up Antarctica and distorts the size of oceans, which is bad news for sailors and penguin researchers, but for geography in general it’s AWESOME(X)
I seriously love the Fuller Projection because - through no fault of their own - millions of kids go through school systems in so many places (not just the U.S.) with Mercator projection maps that are drawn such that they make North America and Europe look much bigger than they’ve ever really been in actual, factual reality. That projection reduces Africa to being the same size as Greenland.
You look at that big white mass hovering above Canada in this map and then look at the immense, enormous, magnificent size of Africa, or of South America which has never, ever been smaller than North America. That’s what reality is. We’re seriously teaching kids to go by a map that is not representative of the physical reality of the planet upon which we live.
Every time I see Fuller maps I just wanna go marching back to the school systems I went through with a fiery vengeance and a bullhorn, screaming through the halls, “EXPLAIN THIS BULLSHIT” and then encourage the current students to also demand of their teachers and school systems and parents and other adults who have been miseducating them for years that they EXPLAIN THIS BULLSHIT and not stop until the bullshit is explained.
That’s not the Fuller Projection (which, wow, yes it was invented by THAT Buckminster Fuller!). It’s the Pierce Quincunical. The P-Q isn’t an equal-area projection: it slightly enlarges the equatorial areas, including Africa and South America, and you can tell if you look closely at the circles of latitude.
^^This is the Fuller Projection, aka the Dymaxion Map. It isn’t quite equal-area either. Honestly, most equal-area maps look ugly as hell, but I’d say the least ugly one is the Goode-Homolosine:
Comparing all three, you can see that the landmasses are slightly different on each, and in terms of relative sizes, the GH is the only ‘right’ one. But there’s something great about the other two. They get the shapes right. They show how the continents connect, which is great for paleoanthropology. North isn’t at the top, in fact they do away with the whole nonsense of the Earth having a top or bottom.
They’re certainly all better than the Mercator. Hating on the Mercator is one of those fun, catharic exercises in consensus equivalent to complaining about Windows Vista.
But basically, no flat maps tell the whole truth. Even the really beautiful ones.
i will never forget the moment i realized that the ‘world map’ as i had been taught it, was inaccurate nonsense based in white supremacy. definitely one of the top 5 most important things i learned/unlearned in college.
for class today we read under western eyes, which was THE feminist text for me as a freshman, like opened my eyes to even the possibility that non-white women could engage with feminism but still critique how fucked up it is
and i still love that fucking article so damn much gimme a hug mohanty you brilliant lady
angry social justice kirk
You people are so fucking insane wtf is this shit like okay good points but of all of the mascots you chose it’s mr ‘fuck every alien with boobies’ and sprinkle leaves on his head yall need a professional helping you live
You do realize that a good number of these are direct quotes from TOS, right?
Or were you just basing the idea of Kirk fucking every alien with “boobies” off pop culture knowledge without ever seeing the source material? Because that’s like never having seen Romeo & Juliet and saying that Romeo never loved anyone before Juliet.
Her name was Rosaline.
The thing is though, as you said, these are all good points, so why should it matter how much fictional consensual sex a character has before the non-fictional good points made are to be disregarded?
Oh, and another thing: Those aren’t “sprinkle leaves,” they’re laurels. It’s a historical reference which you would know from the context of the episode, provided you’ve actually seen it.
Mmmhmm, look like it’s time to spread this around again for those unaware
my face hurts from crying