this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
210 points (97.7% liked)

World News

57926 readers
2165 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Well, if you're going for fidelity, the planet is not a perfect sphere. Regardless, a 3D map is harder to parse and render so it makes sense to use 2D.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Eh, a 3D sphere with mapping is quite workable. Bing maps can click over an overly detailed globe and the 'sphereness' of it only starts to matter when you zoom out. It's only a bit of a strain because of the texturing, and it's not much of a strain at that.

It would not be crazy to have a more accurate interactive behavior instead of assuming that zooming out enough to see continents should still be flattened out.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago

Okay, you show a globe, or rather, represent a globe on a 2D surface.

Now you cannot have a single map that shows everything. And your 2D representtion is distorted anyway.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Even if it were workable, what's the benefit? This might sound a bit exaggerated but if you move from 2d to 3d and taking into account the number of people constantly looking at a map on their phones, car, etc, you'd be consuming way more energy and seeing absolutely no benefits.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the benefit is this very discussion here, that 2D projections necessarily have distortion on zoom out..

Note that the 2D map is almost certainly already rendered into a 3D context, it's just how modern graphics are done. Rendering textures to a curved modeled surface for isn't significantly different than rendering them to a perfectly flat modeled surface.

Even better than Bing maps, if you go to Google maps, click 'layers', then click 'more' and check 'globe view', then you have a google maps that on zoom out just happens to render to sphere instead of 2D. Not the least bit more resource intensive, apples to apples with the same textures that it would have used to build the 2D map but just projected onto a sphere instead.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 2 hours ago

Do you care about directions or geography? 99 times out of 100 I think it'll be the former.