This kind of matches my experience. Not sure if I have Aphantasia, but my mental visual imagery is pretty sparse and not that well formed.
And yet, I can somehow imagine the look of a specific person or thing. I can't really see it as a vivid image, like actually seeing something in real life, but I have a sense of imagining it as visually distinct from any other image.
My audio imagination is top-notch though, I can replay songs and sounds in my head perfectly and vividly.
One small suggestion though: try to always make the first sentence show fully in the card. Several times I was a bit miffed I had to actually click to find out what a card was about, when it would have been better for me to get the gist in advance to know if it was something I wanted to read about.
Well, I'm sure people wish Africa wasn't so smack dab in the center, haha. But, you can't ignore it without making Europe also peripheral, not unless you exchange longitude for latitude and vice versa.
And fun fact, Ghana is the country closest to point where the prime meridian intersects the equator.
No, the Mercator map has been the world map you'd see everywhere by default, and it is not that useful except for sailing, which most of us are not doing
Mercator used to be quite rare before Google Maps, at least in Finland. But it's an appropriate choice for online maps that can be zoomed in and out. Local and regional maps look as you would expect, and shapes don't change when you zoom out.
What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing? I mean they could be neat for visualizing some useful route calculated as vectors and further used as vectors, but it would still be of mostly an aesthetic value, appealing to the viewers emotions, which could be achieved just as well with some palm oil and sugar.
> What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing?
Wow, is this even a genuine question?
I can use a world scale map to illustrate or explain some geographic point I make in a presentation. I can use it as a quick reminder of the geography related to some current news, etc.
If the mariners want to continue using Mercator, who's stopping them?
I remain unconvinced. Even with regional maps people struggle with conceptualising that similar distances at places even relatively close can vary dramatically in time needed to traverse, or with regard to energy/fuel cost to cover, or population density, or a number of things that are important in the moment. It would be extremely hard to use a world scale map to convey actionable information that couldn't be delivered better in another way, the more likely outcome is that it would just be misleading the audience by making them rely on their (almost certainly wrong) intuition rather than the information actually needed in the situation.
As far as the news usecase goes I also don't really see how checking world maps would be applicable outside the news in question being consumed as entertainment, where my previous point on entertainment boiling down to personal pleasure and being fungible still stands.
> So because some people can't use some information well, we should deny that information to all?
The argument isn't that using information is bad, it's that world scale maps are so shit at conveying usable information that there is no point in picking one projection over another (or any really) outside niche settings like sailing. Better to just use other non-map representations of the relevant information at that point.
> I do not consume news purely for entertainment, neither do those in my circle
Here my point was not that all news is entertainment, but rather that news one needs to reference a world scale map to make sense of in all likelihood isn't impacting anywhere near where one is living, nor near anyone amongst family or friends living abroad (hopefully one would remember the closest relevant neighbours), so those pieces are basically entertainment for the masses. (The assumption being that local impact to where the media is would be what's highlighted if there is some, hence the non-need for checking world scale maps in the event that the piece of news is impactful to the individual. So the pieces one feels like checking where on the globe are actually happening, one is in all likelihood checking because one is personally amused by finding out, not because it is useful beyond emotional gratification. And again no projections one could choose from would change the non-impact on the actions/decisions of the consumer of that piece of news.)
That would be lovely. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, nobody sells (for instance) high-quality 65"+ OLED non-"smart" TVs. "dumb TV" options are limited to older display technology.
Literally my current computer monitor, but no, does not work as a living room TV. (Also, would not recommend as a monitor; aggressive ABL and persistent messages about turning off for maintenance.)
When I said 55+ I was talking about the whole size category larger than that, including 65, 77, etc.
I have a 43" Philips Ambilight (43PUS8510, 4K QLED). It's not a dumb TV per se, but you don't have to use any of the smart features, and - most important - you don't have to connect it to a network.
I bought a Sceptre a few years ago but it died pretty quickly (dead pixel strip on the screen). But the replacement 44" Insignia (Best Buy) that I replaced it with has been an awesome tv.
So yes, you can just walk into the Electronics Store (Best Buy) and purchase a dumb TV.
I don't understand why the best advice in this thread is getting downvoted. Even if you buy a smart TV and then disable the smarts, you're still teaching the TV companies that smart TVs sell.
The sad thing was produced by the machine, as its idea of something sad. It is not s result of this particular episode of sadness.
Put another way, “draw me something sad” is too vague; a million people can issue the same prompt, and what comes out does not correlate to any specifics of their own experience of sadness.
Does it matter whether things are true, even if their impact is not readily apparent?
Now, as to impact, one could argue distorting the relative sizes of landmasses causes geopolitical ignorance. For example: do people understand how relatively small western Europe is, the ramifications of that for their political unity, transport system, and impact on the world?
Showing the true size of Africa helps to put into context its challenges with regional transport, political unification, flow of ideas, etc. It also shows that Africa is actually has a relatively low population density. It also makes it easier to understand why lumping everything there under an "Africa" moniker is weird.
As a side effect, the sizes of other regions like South America are also shown more accurately.
> The Mercator projection was used because it made it easy to navigate using straight lines:
But, why should a map made for sea navigation continue to be the map used for everything else? The vast majority of us are not using a map for navigating at sea.
I am even of the view that there should not be one map that everyone defaults to. Use the map that is appropriate to your use case. But if there should be one general, default map, the Marcator projection ranks low in modern relevance for that.
And yet, I can somehow imagine the look of a specific person or thing. I can't really see it as a vivid image, like actually seeing something in real life, but I have a sense of imagining it as visually distinct from any other image.
My audio imagination is top-notch though, I can replay songs and sounds in my head perfectly and vividly.
reply