|
Carbon dioxide posted:
The two maps don't use the same projections and the axes aren't labeled properly, I call shenanigans. 
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Isn't it that one projection has accurate latitudes and the other has accurate longitudes (and that you can't really have these in the same projection)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:
I remember a map, lord knows how accurate, that said something like "there are more people inside this circle (east asia) than outside it"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I remember a map, lord knows how accurate, that said something like "there are more people inside this circle (east asia) than outside it" Yeah, I think I found it  I found it in this Washington Post article, and it lists the countries in the circle. Apparently around 51.4% of the world's population lives there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/07/map-more-than-half-of-humanity-lives-within-this-circle/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:The two maps don't use the same projections and the axes aren't labeled properly, I call shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why should it be labeled, when it's showing how the total population is distributed? The total area is in itself kind of a label really. How many people live on the 70E line of longitude?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:
North America is very sparsely populated, it has about two thirds the population of Europe in about two and a half times the land area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:How many people live on the 70E line of longitude?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:US Presidential election simulation games are great for learning the 50, too. I learned them just by watching the broadcasts. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why does that matter? It's a visual representation of the whole world in aggregate, the absolute numbers aren't really that important in a comparative chart. If it is a comparative chart, then compare the number of people living at 70E and 121E and tell me the ratio between the two. Or, compare the number of people between 15W and 60E to the people living between 30W and 135W. What's the ratio between the two? Is it 1:2? 1:3? Who can say, without a y axis? The problem with the chart not having a labelled y axis is that without that the only thing the chart tells you is that a lot of people live in India and China, and that more people live in Europe and Africa--where humans have been around for millions of years--than live in the Americas where 90% or more of the population was wiped out 500 years ago. If it just had a properly labelled y axis it would tell you how many people lived on each line and allow you to make comparisons between different sections. Failing to label an axis is lazy and makes a chart less useful, and if the chart maker is lazy about something as simple as that, it's perfectly reasonable whether they are perhaps too lazy to gather their data in a proper and accurate manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:If it is a comparative chart, then compare the number of people living at 70E and 121E and tell me the ratio between the two. Or, compare the number of people between 15W and 60E to the people living between 30W and 135W. What's the ratio between the two? Is it 1:2? 1:3? Who can say, without a y axis? Reveilled posted:Failing to label an axis is lazy and makes a chart less useful, and if the chart maker is lazy about something as simple as that, it's perfectly reasonable whether they are perhaps too lazy to gather their data in a proper and accurate manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Somaen posted:A part of Kazakhstan IS in Europe, in the arbitrary geographical boundaries sense。 Only in the sense that Kazakhstan is an integral part of Old Great Bulgaria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Only in the sense that Kazakhstan is an integral part of Old Great Bulgaria. The Ural river flows through far western Kazakhstan. That mark the border between Europe and Asia. So a sliver of Kazakhstan is in Europe. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Continents_vide_couleurs.png
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Meanwhile half the EU can't decide whether Turkey's in Asia or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Riso posted:Meanwhile half the EU can't decide whether Turkey's in Asia or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Clearly, then, half of Turkey belongs in the EU, while the other half belongs in Asia! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
That's just the Greeks want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
It's been officially decided that Turkey belongs to Europe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Guys Turkey has been in the Eurovision song contest for a long long time so it's obviously in Europe just like Israel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's been officially decided that Turkey belongs to Europe (Link?) Jerry Cotton posted:Guys Turkey has been in the Eurovision song contest for a long long time so it's obviously in Europe just like Israel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Old James posted:The Ural river flows through far western Kazakhstan. That mark the border between Europe and Asia. So a sliver of Kazakhstan is in Europe. Why do you mock Old Great Bulgaria? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Uhm, Anatolia is called Asia Minor, not Europe Minor! Turkey passed Council's accession "test" which includes territorial unity with Europe as one of its cornerstone "hoops" - that's a pretty conclusive, albeit mostly political rather than geographical argument - which should actually be a good thing in a thread called "politically loaded maps". It is made even more persuasive by the fact that Morocco had been rejected on geographical grounds. There's been a lively debate surrounding this shift in borders of Europe, but I can only name some not widely accessible academic articles such as Alexander Bürgin's "Cosmopolitan Entrapment: The Failed Strategies to Reverse Turkey’s EU Membership Eligibility" "The EU as a ‘normative’ power: how can this be?" by Helene Sjursen, "From Twelve to Twenty-Four? The Challenges to the EC Posed by the Revolutions in Eastern Europe" by Wallace, or "Turkey, Europe, and Paradoxes of Identity: Perspectives on the International Context of Democratization" by Ziya Onis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
But...Thrace? Besides a country can be both European and Asian, really, see Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What's the point though, the information the map is communicating doesn't really allow for any real analysis beyond what you wrote here anyway. Not labeling the axis would be a way to convey precisely that, making the map more honest about its limitations. What? I don't understand what you mean here. The information the map is communicating is the number of people who live on each line of latitude or longitude. It fails in this respect because it does not have a labelled axis to show how many people live on each line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:What? I don't understand what you mean here. The information the map is communicating is the number of people who live on each line of latitude or longitude. It fails in this respect because it does not have a labelled axis to show how many people live on each line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Just because it doesn't tell you specific numbers doesn't means it fails, if the only intention is to give you a graphical impression of the distribution of the world's population. Since knowing how many people live at various latitudes and longitudes is nearly meaningless, given that the landmasses aren't uniform, the Earth is a sphere, there not being anything like latitudinal or longitudinal loyalty/political connection, differences in terrain/climate and so on, there's really little reason to have more detail than that. If you want a map where the distribution of population has actual numbers on it, it makes a billion times more sense to use an equal area projection divided into equal population zones, since that could connect all these elements into a cohesive whole. By that logic, what is the point in the map existing at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Most people live north of the equator and HOLY poo poo, CHINA AND INDIA HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. As an interesting aside: HOLY poo poo, loving NOBODY LIVES IN AMERICA. It does a really good job representing those points. While they should be well known, showing the scale of it is really neat. Sure, it is a "gimmick" map in the same way that 70% of all the maps in this thread are "gimmicks", the remaining 30% mainly comprised of "historical gimmicks" but still gimmicks . . . and then every ten pages or so we actually get a map that clarifies a disputed border region. Note: most of those are also gimmicks showing really crazy borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:
I like the obvious spikes caused by, on the longitude graph, Honolulu, Seattle/Bay Area, Southern California, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, Melbourne, Sydney, and Auckland. And, on the latitude graph, Jakarta, Sao Paulo, and Buenos Aires are easily visible. I would like to see a version of this with major cities labelled, so we could see just how much influence they have on the graph (it's difficult for me to see, for example, where Moscow would be, but I know it would influence this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Most people live north of the equator and HOLY poo poo, CHINA AND INDIA HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. As an interesting aside: HOLY poo poo, loving NOBODY LIVES IN AMERICA. It does a really good job representing those points. While they should be well known, showing the scale of it is really neat. Sure, it is a "gimmick" map in the same way that 70% of all the maps in this thread are "gimmicks", the remaining 30% mainly comprised of "historical gimmicks" but still gimmicks . . . and then every ten pages or so we actually get a map that clarifies a disputed border region. Note: most of those are also gimmicks showing really crazy borders. Right, I get that it's a gimmick map, that's part of my point, that the objection that labelling the axes properly would not be useful in any way is a pointless objection when the map is a gimmick anyway. However if the axes of the map were properly labelled the map would be more "useful" in the sense that you could glean more information from it. Useful information, probably not, but it's a gimmick map anyway so the objection of whether the information is useful or not is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
The real reason the map maybe shouldn't be labeled is that in theory each particular data point is infinitesimally thin, so it's only meaningful in comparison with the others. It would work better as a percentage distribution, with the total area adding to 1. But even still, the actual numbers would be pretty much meaningless. (Yes, the data on the map is actually an approximation of infinitesimally thin data points, but if their labels only reflect the resolution of the binning, that's not very meaningful either)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:The real reason the map maybe shouldn't be labeled is that in theory each particular data point is infinitesimally thin, so it's only meaningful in comparison with the others. Ever take calculus? I'm pretty sure Newton and Leibniz would disagree with you on this. I'm just nit-picking but labeling the axes would allow you to at least eyeball an approximation of what the integral might be over different latitudes/longitudes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Old James posted:The Ural river flows through far western Kazakhstan. That mark the border between Europe and Asia. So a sliver of Kazakhstan is in Europe. Um this map is wrong, the subcontinent of Europe ends at the Ukraine border, except for a part encompassing St. Petersburg and Moscow
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:As an interesting aside: HOLY poo poo, loving NOBODY LIVES IN AMERICA. The US is the third most populous country in the world after China and India. Sure there's a big drop off from 2nd to 3rd but if you conclude from that map that "nobody lives in America" you're looking at it wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Um this map is wrong, the subcontinent of Europe ends at the Ukraine border, except for a part encompassing St. Petersburg and Moscow It's all loving arbitrary but the "commonly accepted" border is the Ural Mountains (I had not heard it being the Ural River before Old James but then again it doesn't really make much difference either way). Riptor posted:The US is the third most populous country in the world after China and India. Sure there's a big drop off from 2nd to 3rd but if you conclude from that map that "nobody lives in America" you're looking at it wrong Not really. Less than a billion people live in both of the Americas combined. China alone exceeds that, India alone exceeds that, Southeast Asia plus Bangladesh nearly meets that. Yeah plenty of people live in the Americas but it's only a fraction (literally less than a seventh  ) compared to the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Can't the relative population sizes between the continents, basically be boiled down to; the same amount of people live in the Americas and Europe, the same amount aas in both in both both live in Africa and the same as the other three combined in Asia. Though in a program I watched a month or so ago said that by the time the population levels out Africa will hold as many people as Asia, but the rest of the population levels will be more or less the same .
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Ever take calculus? I'm pretty sure Newton and Leibniz would disagree with you on this. I'm just nit-picking but labeling the axes would allow you to at least eyeball an approximation of what the integral might be over different latitudes/longitudes. Yeah I guess you're right, but how many people would interpret it that way? More likely they'd say this many people live on latitude XYZ, and they'd be wrong. I teach statistics, and I can't tell you how many students are confused trying to interpret the y axis values on say the normal distribution. Of course these values aren't meaningless, they're pretty important mathematically, but they're unnecessary for understanding the distribution at a freshman stats level. [/pointless derail]
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's all loving arbitrary but the "commonly accepted" border is the Ural Mountains (I had not heard it being the Ural River before Old James but then again it doesn't really make much difference either way).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Can't the relative population sizes between the continents, basically be boiled down to; the same amount of people live in the Americas and Europe, the same amount aas in both in both both live in Africa and the same as the other three combined in Asia. Africa has a billion people, which is the same as North and South America combined, and about 40% more than Europe. It's geographically huge, but it's pretty underpopulated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Ural River makes a lot of sense if you're looking for a geographical feature to define the remainder of the border between Europe and Asia, if we use the Ural Mountains for the rest, seeing as the Urals don't reach the Caspian. Yeah but this way we can keep those filthy Kazakhs out! Rumda posted:Can't the relative population sizes between the continents, basically be boiled down to; the same amount of people live in the Americas and Europe, the same amount aas in both in both both live in Africa and the same as the other three combined in Asia. Africa's rapidly growing and will probably end up being the most populous continent relative to size and whatever, but it actually only overtook Europe a couple of decades ago. The Americas, Europe, and Africa all have "around" the same population (closeish to a billion). The main thing to take out is just that Asia completely dwarfs them all, and I mean, we hear that all the time, but I don't think most people actually grasp it. Like to that "the USA is the third most populous country in the world" guy a few posts back- Java and Bangladesh combined have a population of about 300 million, which is pretty close to that of the US- yet they only have three percent of its land area. (I also like to bring that up every time there's a mercator projection debate) We all know India and China have populations exceeding a billion, but there are still more than two billion people in Asia that aren't in those countries. And instead they're mostly in really tiny islands so we don't really notice them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Africa has a billion people, which is the same as North and South America combined, and about 40% more than Europe. It's geographically huge, but it's pretty underpopulated. You shouldn't forget this big inhabitable area called the Sahara.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:09
|
|