Acquiring Greenland would move the USA up 2 places in the list of largest countries (past Canada and China). That's probably why he wants it.

Wait till he finds out it's not green at all!

There's shrinkage!

Map Men Map Men Map Map Map Men Men!

Dymaxion Map supremacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map

None of those preserve the shape of Antarctica!

What is this Twin-peak Earth?

Not to start any shit, but the Robinson Projection looks pretty nice.

Tbh any discussion of Mercator is ragebait enough. (There's no better choice for slippy maps btw)

Croissant shape please.

You don't know how big my screen is.

::: spoiler Is that it? :::

Your penis isn’t far enough north for it to help

Slightly enlarging something that is microscopic doesn't change much.

10 x 0 = 0

Not if you project it onto an oblate spheroid.

Can they spot grrenland on the map tho?

Trump handlers want the resources. Trump wants it because his ego is inflated by mercator projection.

Eh, I doubt that's the case. It could be a 20 m^2 area, but if it had Greenland's resources they would want it.

No, it just can't be scaled down and somehow kept in place at the tame time

TL;DR Somebody made an awful mistake rendering this map, it's way too low-poly.

It't not exactly the European portion but most of its recognizable parts (Kola peninsula, Caucascus...) are missing because of the horrible SVG compression that deleted vertices presumably by count rather than keeping the most significant* ones. Just look how the Mercator/shrunk versions differ from each other and from an actually good map! Not even they will show every fjord of Iceland but at least they won't reduce it to a triangle!

* A simple illustration would be Colorado, originally defined as a (Mercator) rectangle (between meridians and parallels) but ending up a 697-sided polygon (still way fewer than most surveyed administrative areas that size) largely because of surveying errors. However, if you pick the 1ˢᵗ, 175ᵗʰ, 349ᵗʰ and 523ʳᵈ vertex (or points every 362 mi/582 km along the border), you don't approximate the shape nearly as well as by picking the 4 corners of the defining rectangle.

And because corners are always mostly convex (they have to be because turns add up to 360° for closed areas), this compression will remove area more frequently than add it. This makes the map quite disingenuous (maybe not intentionally), as it amplifies the effect OOP was trying to show.
If I were a full-time Lemmy commenter, I'd download the Colorado polygon from OSM, import sone geo-libraries into Python and do all 174** combinations of picking the 1ˢᵗ, 175ᵗʰ, 349ᵗʰ and 523ʳᵈ vertex, visualize each quadrilateral (with great-circe edges) as a video frame with its area printed in the center.

What Colorado might look like using an algorithm similar to OOP's:
(Manually created single frame but accurate to the number of digits shown. Also, I actually used every 228ᵗʰ of the 912 OSM waypoints, which are sometimes redundant (colinear), which I didn't bother to check.)
(Edit: maybe official government geoJSON would help? The best files are "500k" or "1:500,000 resolution", and even they reduce Colorado to 357 vertices. The complete dataset is probably https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/grfc/public_grfc_cur25_08.txt (50 MB text file!); see also legend and FIPS but that is for all Colorado's counties, I'd have to merge the polygons and maybe also remove any non-polygon data if there's any.) ArcGIS says they processed the data but they probably left lots of redundant colinear points in, since there's 1565 vertices in their dataset.

** Technically 697 options because 697 is not divisible by 4. But only ¼ of them are fully distinct, as every consecutive 4 maps have an identical starting vertex and just differ in which pair of vertices is 175 apart as opposed to the normal 174.

That close to your equator, wouldn't it have the opposite of the intended effect?

level it

INSTRUCTIONS UNCLEAR, ICBM SEQUENCE INITIATED

☢️🚀⤵️💥🌇

(You made a fatal spelling mistake, you killed Greenland, its all your fault!)

Antarctica is missing, which skews it heavily towards north

It doesn't show Antarctica, but also there's just more stuff in the far north than the far south (if we aren't counting Antarctica)

Crossing the globe north to south is the same distance as east to west, but since it is folded open on 2d maps it looks as if the earth is wider then it is higher. In this projection that means the map is stretched more horizontally than vertically, if i understand correctly.

Now guess where China builds railroads for exports to Europe.

True size is possible just fine on a 2D surface. For both too large and too small to be even possible there must exist some transitional point where the size is correct.

You cannot have both the size and shape correct at the same time. Having the correct size means distorting the shape, and vise versa. One or the other can be correct, but never both.

It's a curved 2d surface

It's a much closer approximation, anyway.

But then everything near the equator will be smaller.

Do you shower in a handstand?

Canada (9.98M sqkm) is only slightly larger than the US (9.83M sqkm), so it checks out that they're really close in size here

Let me know if I understand correctly. You want a true to life sized map of earth? 😳

I don't know what you mean by "other such variations", but maybe you are looking for a map with something like the Mollweide projection? That's a bit of distortion in shape but trying to keep areas real.

Technically, the outer surface of a sphere is, itself, two-dimensional. It is, however, non-Euclidean and cannot be perfectly preserved in a Euclidean two-dimensional space.

O RUMBO A HEXA

The world wouldn't let them destroy enough of the rainforest to do so.

The Goode Homolosine projection. You lose accurate direction, shape, AND size to a degree, but less size issues than some projections. It's a good way to remind kids that the world is round, but once you try to use it for anything like showing a route or visualizing relative distances, the limitations become significant.

It's still pretty big.