The Mercator Projection - what is the alternative?

I know that the way maps of the world are usually shown exaggerates the area of countries further away from the equator. 

The map of the world as we know it is based on the Mercator Projection, a way of showing our three-dimensional spherical earth in two dimensions within a rectangle devised by the Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator way back in 1569. It shows lines of longitude and latitude as straight lines and neatly lines up with the cardinal directions, making it easier for ships to visualize their routes along straight lines. It is familiar and convenient.

BUT ... it really distorts the shapes and sizes of areas futher from the equator, and the further away they are the more it distorts them. Greenland, for example, looks to be about the same size as the whole of Africa, whereas in fact it is 14 times snaller; Ellesmere Island, in the north of Canada, appears about the same size as Australia, whereas in fact Australia is 39 times bigger; Madagascar and Great Britain look to be about the same size, but Madagascar is actually over twice as large; etc.

Mercator Projection

This has long been known, but attempts to address the problem have introduced their own issues. 

The Goode Homolosyne Projection was developed in 1923 by John Paul Goode is an interrupted pseudocylindrical equal-area composite map, often called the "orange peel map" because it looks like a flattened orange peel. The main drawback is the "interruptions" or discontinuities it results in (which are designed to mainly fall in the oceans), although it does a good job of maintaining relative sizes of countries and regions.

Goode Homolosyne Projection

In 1954, Buckminster Fuller came up with his Dymaxion map, which maps the globe onto a 20-faced icosahedron, which can then be flattened out into two dimensions. The result is a rather strange looking shape, heavily interrupted and difficult to use, but with a reasonably accurate representation of the areas and shapes of the countries and continents, even if their alignment and positionings leave something to be desired.

Fuller Dymaxion Projection

In 1999, the Authagraph Projection was designed by Japanese architect Hajime Narukawa. Building on Fuller's idea, Narukawa mapped the globe onto 96 triangles, which he then transferred onto a tetrahedron (while maintaining area proportions) which can be expanded into a 2-dimensional rectangle. Many people believe this to be the best projection available, combining good relative  area representation with ease of use, even if the layout and directions are no longer so intuitive. It can even be folded back into an approximation of a sphere, earning it the nickname of the "origami map".

Authagraph Projection

The Equal Earth Projection was developed in 2018 by an international team of cartographers to address the distortions in the Mercator Projection. The projection had been championed by the advocacy groups #CorrectTheMap, African No Filter and Speak Up Africa.

Equal Earth Projection

Do you think we could ever get used to this?

The Ever Given container ship in numbers

The container ship that was stuck for over a week across the Suez Canal has finally been freed (at least partially thanks to a full moon and higher-than-normal tides). But it's interesting to look at a few figures, because most of us have no idea just how damned big these ships are, and just how much international trade goes through the Suez Canal.

The Taiwanese-owned Ever Given is about 400 metres long (1,312 ft), about as long as the Empire State Tower is high, and substantially bigger than the largest cruise ship, Symphony of the Seas. It weighs nearly 220,000 tonnes, and can carry about 20,000 of those huge standard 20 ft x 40 ft containers (it was carrying about 18,300 containers at the time it was stranded last week).

The Suez Canal, which was opened in 1869 (although it was substantially enlarged in 2015), sees about 12% of global sea trade pass through its 193 km (120 miles) length. This amounts to about 18,500 container ships a year (over 50 a day). At the end of Ever Given's week of blockage, some 369 other ships were held up waiting to pass through, representing an estimated $9.6 billion in trade. Egypt was losing about $15 million a day in canal revenues. 

Quite an expensive fender-bender!

Health authorities are actively contributing to vaccine hesitancy

There's really no other way to say it: Canada's (and Europe's) public health authorities are currently making a real hash of things as regards the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, and are actively contributing to the already worrying levels of vaccine hesitancy. 

First, they tell us it's not proven to be safe and efficacious for over 65s, whereas in actual fact all they meant was that the initial test data did not include sufficient test subjects over that age. There is no reason to suspect that the vaccine is any less safe or effective for 66-year olds as it is for 64-year olds, and an abundance of real world data from the UK and Europe has shown it to be perfectly safe and very efficacious for any age group, ESPECIALLY over-65s. Anyway, both Canada and Europe changed their minds on that and, having put unnecessary worries in many people's minds, recommended that the vaccine be used for seniors too.

Then, there was the whole blood clot issue, as a result of which several European countries and Canada have ruled that people under the age of 55 should not get the AstraZeneca vaccine because of a risk of vaccine-induced blood clots (vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopemia, or VIPIT, if you really want the jargon). This is an extremely rare response that has occurred 25 times in Europe out of about 20 million AstraZeneca doses administered, lower than the rate of blood clots expected in the general population. There have been no blood clot events at all reported in Canada out of the 300,000 or so doses administered here.

However, some of the cases are an even rarer event, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), which can cause fatal bleeding in the brain, and has led to the death of 9 people in Europe. They mainly seems to occur in people who have low blood platelet counts, arguably a pre-existing condition, and mainly affect people between the ages of 20 and 55 (or 63 according to some studies), the majority of them women. 

Be that as it may, the week after the European Medicines Agency issued a report saying that it had investigated the issue and concluded that the vaccine is not associated with an increase in the overall risk of blood clots, and that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its possible risks, Canada has nevertheless issued its blanket warning that under-55s should not get the vaccine, at least for now. Most provinces have already followed suit, regardless of the fact that under-55s are not actually eligible to receive it yet in most provinces anyway. 

This advice will probably change too, like the over-65s ban did, but not before lasting damage has been done among a jittery population already prone to vaccine hesitancy for much less scientific reasons.

Incidentally, advice to people who have already had the AstraZeneca shot - like me - is hard to find, but VIPIT symptoms usually occur within 4 to 20 days after the vaccination. So, if you haven't had any symptoms (persistent and severe headaches, seizures, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest or abdominal pain) in that time, then you are probably fine.

UPDATE

A new report from the UK shows more and more cases of the AstraZeneca blood clot issue are occurring, a total of 30 cases from 18 million shots (all women between the ages of 25 and 65), of which 22 were the more serious CVST event, and there have been a total of 7 deaths.

British (and European) health authorities, however, insist that the vaccine is a good one, and that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. As one Cambridge scientist points out, the risk of a blood clot outcome is around one in half a million, and a month's delay on vaccinating half a million people would, statistically, result in around 85 severe cases of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, of which around 5 would be expected to die.

Looked at that way, AstraZeneca seems like a pretty safe bet. And, after all, no medication is completely safe for everyone. How many medicines have you ever taken where the impossibly fine print mentions "possible" side effects that include nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, and ... yes ... death?

UPDATE UPDATE

More recent studies show that the risks of getting a blood clot are much higher for those who contract COVID-19 than for those who receive a vaccine, by a factor of between 8 and 10. That particular statistic really turns the overreaction to the blood clot issue on its head. Unfortunately, the damage to public confidence in the vaccines has already happened. 

And here's a handy-dandy graphic to put things into perspective, for those with short attention spans:

Canada's Supreme Court rules federal carbon tax is constitutional - end of story, right?

Various Canadian courts have ruled that the federal carbon tax is perfectly legal and constitutional over the last few years, bilutvrhe Conservative premiers of Alberta  Saskatchewan and Ontario chose not to believe them, and insisted on spending more taxpayers' money by escalating it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Well, the Supreme Court has spoken, and ruled - surprise, surprise! - that Canada's federal carbon tax is indeed perfectly legal and constitutional, and that the federal government is well within its rights, under the "peace, order and good government" clause of the constitution, to impose a price on carbon in those intransigent provinces who will not do so themselves, on the grounds that global warming is a critical national and international problem that is too important to be left to the whims of provincial premiers with their own personal agendas.

After the judgement was handed down, Scott Moe of Saskatchewan basically, rolled over and said he would institute his own carbon tax, so that he can at least day he is in control of his own destiny (even if he is not). Ontario's Doug Ford despatched a junior minister to make a statement, and just mumbled something about at least Ontario still having their industrial carbon rules. Only Mad Dog Kenney from Alberta continued to bluster, as is his wont, vowing that climate change remains "a political issue", yada, yada, "a democratic issue", yada, yada, "not going to use the excuse of this decision or the federal carbon tax to "squeeze more money for the government out of Albertans", yada, yada (someone hasn't read up on how a carbon tax works).

Anyway, at least certain provinces will hopefully stop waxing lyric about how a national carbon tax is unconstitutional (don't hold your breath, though), although obviously the whole subject will remain a hot-button party political issue, especially in the wake of the federal Conservative Party's vote to effectively deny climate change, and leader Erin O'Toole's response to the legal ruling: "Canada's conservatives will repeal Mr. Trudeau's carbon tax". Sigh....

Do Magnitsky Laws actually work?

Canada, in concert with the US, UK, and EU, is on a roll recently as regards imposing long-overdue sanctions on China and on Russia. These are Magnitsky-style sanctions on individual officials, rather than on the country as a whole, but I can't help but question how effective such sanctions are in practice. 

I can see how countrywide sanctions could effectively hurt a pariah state, but how is slapping sanctions on individuals (and, note, the individuals sanctioned are not leaders, but "officials", mid-level functionaries at best) going to change the way those states behave? In many cases, I am not even sure how the individuals involved are discommoded at all, let alone the countries as as whole. These sanctions involve freezing any assets these individuals have in Canada, banning them from travelling to Canada, and banning Canadian citizens and businesses from providing them with financial services. So, unless these people have offshore money lodged with Canadian banks, or cottages in Muskoka, or plans to visit the Rockies, how are they going to be directly affected at all? China's knee-jerk sanctions back will presumably have even less effect.

I can understand that there is a certain, limited, diplomatic impact - take that, you varlet, see how cross we are! - but  I can't see this having any effect at all on the likes of inveterate offenders such as Russia and China. They are not going to turn round and say, "oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were so serious, I'll change our polices at once!" 

It's hard to find data, or even opinions, on the matter. It's almost as though Western democracies have taken it as an article of faith, and closed ranks around the whole concept. Probably the best exposition and assessment of the arguments I have found is this article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Bill Browder himself - anti-Putin zealot and architect of the original Magnitsky Act back in 2012, who has spent his life ever since flying around the world trying to persuade other states to enact similar legislation - argues that making officials who were involved in specific civil rights abuses or corruption scams into international pariahs in this way works, and also has the effect of making other officials think twice about getting involved in similar schemes. Says Browder, "It's creating a new culture around the world. A general in Belarus might think twice when they're given orders to commit atrocities. And it will only get stronger the more country use these sanctions." He also says, "It's not enough, but it's something." Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney adds, "You many not be able to solve every problem in the world or respond to every abuse, but you can make sure that your country is not a safe haven for despots and war criminals."

And maybe they're right.

Conservative Party of Canada shows its true colours (hint: not green)

The Conservative Party of Canada voted at their annual policy convention recently on the issue of whether to include some more environmental statements in their constitution. Answer: Nope.

They couldn't even agree to include a statement that "climate change is real" and that the party is "willing to act", a rather innocent-sounding motion that nevertheless met with a 54-46 defeat. The Conservatives therefore become the country's first climate change-denying party, not a good look in Canada, where a recognition of climate change has always shown itself in polls to be an important plank of national electability.

Anyway, nothing daunted, their Glorious Leader Erin O'Toole has chosen to pretend that nothing actually happened, or at least that if it did happen they didn't really mean it: "I am the leader and this is an important issue for me. The debate is closed." Debate? What debate?

Well, I don't think that the Conservatives were particularly well-placed to fight a summer election anyway, if that is indeed what we end up with. But this has certainly done them no favours.

Belarusian man imprisoned fos showing Canadian flag

Has it come to this? A Belarusian living in the capital city of Minsk, has been imprisoned for 15 days for hanging a Canadian flag in his window. Not because it is illegal to support Canada in Belarus, but because the red-and-white maple leaf flag is suspiciously similar to the red-and-white flag of the Belarus pro-democracy protest movement.

Siarhey Panin has never been to Canada, but the Canadian flag was sent to him by a friend in Ottawa. He was imprisoned when he refused to take the flags down in protest at Lukashenko's rigged election victory last August. It seems that the Belarus authorities do not share Mr. Panin's sense of humour.

Is Scots actually a distinct language?

I read recently about the "Scots language", and I thought, "oh, you mean the Scots dialect?" But apparently there is indeed such a thing as the Scots language. Or at least the Scots think so.

It's the language of "auld lang syne", of "wee bairns" and "bonnie lassies". It's the language of Robbie Burns, which, as you might know, can be pretty indecipherable for us Sassenachs: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley / An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain / For promis'd joy", and all that.

But as that snippet shows, it is essentially the same as English with some local words and a strong accent, which in other cases is referred to as a dialect. So, is Scots really a language in and of itself?

The Scots Language Centre website certainly believes so. In fact, it suggests that the Scots language has its own set of dialects, including Shetlandic, Orcadian, Doric, Caitnes, Mearns, Borders, etc.

Hell, there's even a Scots language version of Wikipedia, although it only has about 41,000 articles, and many of these were apparently written by an American teenager, not a native Scots speaker (not surprisingly, there have been many complaints about the quality of the Scots language throughout the site).

The Dictionaries of the Scots Language website argues that Scots has a much larger number of special vocabulary words than other English dialects. and that it even has its own grammatical conventions. It also argues that the very existence of a body of literature (albeit a pretty small one) in the Scots language is proof enough in and of itself. 

As The Economist points out, though, whether Scots should be considered a language or a dialect is, to a large extent, a political question rather than a linguistic one. In these days of independence and Brexit referendums, Scotland is keen to claim anything that would support their independence and their differentness.

Me, I still think it's just a strong dialect. But then, I'm not Scottish...