I would expect them to build and staff studios and soundstages down there. Location shooting is expensive wherever you go - this is about getting away from US labor and other costs. They're not the only ones doing it either.
“Any reference to the ‘Gulf of America’ initiative on your Google Maps platform must be exclusively limited to the marine area under US jurisdiction,” the letter read. “Any extension beyond that zone exceeds the authority of any national government or private entity..."
So the issue is not the renaming per se, but that waters previously known collectively among all countries bordering it as the Gulf of Mexico have been wholly renamed.
The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
This is not how mapping works internationally. There is less agreement than I think you imagine. To give a simple non-political example, how many oceans are there and what are they named?
There are myriad authorities that maintain the official database of geographic names for use within their jurisdiction. Conflicts between these various databases are common. No one has the authority, either in theory or practice, to determine what a "correct" map looks like. To accommodate this, all mapping companies maintain a huge number of deltas for each authority.
There isn't One True Map. It is really a vast number of separate maps maintained in parallel, one for each jurisdiction that claims the authority to dictate what a map should look like. To the extent possible, companies try to minimize the number of parallel maps they must maintain. Geographic boundaries, even uncontested ones, give a hint of why this is necessary. An international border is commonly shared by several administrative jurisdictions (national and then subdivisions of each nation). If one of those several jurisdictions does a high-precision survey that moves some inconsequential line a few centimeters, what gives them the authority to edit that border for every other jurisdiction that shares it? Managing these inconsistencies is one of the basic challenges of making quasi-authoritative maps.
Mexico does not have an argument here. Everyone in every country uses an opinionated map that reflects a self-interested narrative that therefore is in conflict with maps used elsewhere. This isn't a surprise or shocking, things have always worked this way. The US, like Mexico, absolutely has the authority to make any map they want. No one is required to use either of those maps and in fact many countries reject both the American and Mexican versions of the map.
In spanish, french, chinese? I think gulf of mexico is pretty standard for many languages, but it can happen that a language/nationality will cause certain areas by names with different meanings
That would apply equally well to other bodies of water with disputed names, which have been stylized as e.g. Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) and Sea of Japan (East Sea) on Google Maps for like, 15 years?
well, there sure was a lot in the countries involved!! they have all lobbied and argued extensively in favor of their selected name for many years, and their people do seem to feel strongly about these matters.
I don't have a final answer for all situations, but certainly if you look at those things on the map right now they read one name, then the other in parentheses. The "Gulf of America" has no such parenthetical. That seems like an acceptable compromise that Google has already adopted in other disputes. I suspect it will rile the current administration, however, if they do so here, and so they have not.
edit: oh, I find Google has already addressed this, and it is only in the US that it is just gulf of america:
This certainly seems sound for whatever portion of the gulf is Mexico's territory, but, does Mexico have jurisdiction over the 'middle part'? My non-expert understanding is that the US owns the portion of the gulf that's within 200 nautical miles of US land and Mexico owns anything within 200 nautical miles of Mexican land, leaving a bit in the center that's international waters. Maybe there's a treaty that gives most of it to Mexico somehow?
The solution where we cut it in half on the map and give it two names seems silly, since it is a single geographic feature. `Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)` (and the reverse when connecting from the US) seems like a reasonable middle-ground. It doesn't seem that Google Maps generally indicates who controls which ocean territory.
What governing body enforces the naming of that body of water?
I'm fairly certain anyone can call it whatever they want.
If Mexico has a law that it needs to be named the golfo de Mexico then display that to requests coming from Mexico. Otherwise how can Mexico force Americans to call anything anything?
isn't cartography and GIS crowdsourced to some degree? Why aren't y'all using OSM?
"Mexico" is not some homogeneous monolith of amorphous identity and yes the history of "New Mexico" and Mexican citizens/nationals residing in the E.E.U.U. and Indigenous groups such as the Tohono O'Odham or Yaquis' governance and voices count. To varying degrees and some are sovereign tribes or communities; some self-identify in ways that may surprise us
There's a feature in Maricopa County that is popular for hiking and nature, and now we carefully refer to the hill as "Piestewa Peak" to honor a fallen warrior who served her/my/our country to defend liberty, and I guess the freedom to rename stuff for posterity or prestige.
Ok, totally not the point ... but a big chunk of what is now the US was Mexico, and the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo (and to a lesser extent the Gadsden Purchase) officially handed it over -- so I think Mexico may actually have formally agreed that we're not North Mexico.
The difference is, of course, that the Gulf of Mexico is about as related to Mexico as New Mexico is to Mexico. That is to say, it's not theirs at all. Furthermore, "America" is a general geographic region and not technically exclusive to the United States. We are both in North America.
> The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.
While i hate this gulf of america bullshit, i'm not sure i agree this argument is so sound. I don't think there is any rule of international law requiring countries to refer to other country's territory by the preferred name of the state that has soverignty over that territory. Maybe if you take it as an implicit threat of annexation or claim of soverignty, that would be a violation of the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, but that seems a bit of a stretch at the present juncture. [Ianal].
Basically i think there is a big difference between saying someone is acting illogically and someone is acting illegally.
A better argument is that the president doesn’t determine the common, accepted name of bodies of water in English. Even American English. And especially ones outside US borders.
Be that as it may, from the mexico lawsuit stand point, is there any rule of law being violated by refering to something by the wrong name? It doesn't really matter if the president lacks the authority to change the de jure name or what the de facto name is, if google has no obligation to use the correct names for things.
I do also, separately, think the lawsuit seems odd. But I guess when confronted with absurdity… file absurd lawsuits? I dunno, speaking of maps, we’re in the part that reads “here be dragons”.
Mexico is trying to compel Google's US-based systems to display a preferred name to US users. This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US. So, when Mexico does it no outrage? That's just reserved for the US president?
> This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US.
You somehow got it entirely backwards. The Trump Administration decided it was a good idea to rebrand random geographical areas with nationalistic names and force that change upon the world. The world woke up to see this "freedom fries" nonsense forced upon them through the likes of Google Maps. In the very least, Google must not change the experience for anyone else accessing their service outside of the US.
Ask yourself this: why would anyone in the world be subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts?
This is a common problem. In Korea, the Sea of Japan is the "East Sea". In Iran the Persian Gulf is the "Arabian Sea." Do we waste our time worrying how maps are labeled for consumers in Iran or Korea?
What's different here is an objecting nation (Mexico) is interfering with names and expression that are used in another country, namely the US.
You think Gulf of Mexico is a better name. You're entitled to you opinion, particularly if you live in the US. But what if you lived in Mexico and the US government sued you for using your preferred name in Mexico? And you think that I have it backwards?
Wikipedia says that's "an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023 [that] accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890." How does this answer your parent's question?
Theoretically, if you can make Trump happy and show you are on his side, Trump could make that case disappear.
Or, more realistically, Trump will still screw them over anyway, scorpion & frog style.
Large companies are bending over backwards to curry favor with Trump (see Meta settling and paying millions on a case they were winning and almost certainly would win).
“why would anyone in the world be subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts?”
Maybe because everyone in the world is subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts.
How do you think the names of geographical areas came about in the first place? Did everyone in the world get a vote on the official Geographical Naming Commission? Oh wait. What should we call this official commission? What language should be the official language for the naming commission?
The overblown outrage over this issue is absolutely silly.
yes because the opinion of voters who care about DEI doesn't seem to matter, while voters who demonize it does. why you pretend this won't ressonate well with the electorate of our new president?
you may believe it is a puff piece, and that's subjective, it's fine to think so. but saying it's paid for is a serious accusation and very different from "puff". big time news outlets like the NYT don't do paid content like that - if they have any sponsored content it will be prominently labeled or placed in the Opinion/Editorial section.
Sure as a clock, tick follows tock. Can't imagine trying to build out cost structures, business plans, product launches etc on such rapidly shifting sands. Good that you get more for your money, I suppose. But I get the feeling no model or provider is worth committing to in any serious way.
Wow, love this. I of course love the classic color lettering (which really is quite tasteful) but I'm going to cop a "minimalist" black style for more formal occasions!
But anyone who thinks it's new should go back and read the first part of The Anatomy of Melancholy; there, a fictionalized Democritus, accused of insanity, turns the accusation back on the world at large, citing a surprisingly large and still relevant list of issues: information overload, self-serving politicians, charlatans, rubes, general bullshit. The phenomenon of meteoria goes back that far and further. I'm actually curious whether Carr cites Burton!
looks like the same approach used to censor different things right? openai censors zittrain because he wants the right to be forgotten and openai doesn't want legal trouble, deepseek censors tiananmen because, well, they don't want to go to prison / disappear. from a tech perspective they don't seem very different
I agree with you. I thought this subthread was about "hey thats funny the censorship UX is similar (and similarly weird/clunky) between chatgpt and deepseek, whaddayaknow". That the content of what they censor is different is kinda outside the scope (and I agree that depending on an AI that has CCP censorship rules built-in sounds like a bad plan)
It's partially inspired by murdle, but I think it is different enough. Murdle is all about logic clue (with some small mini games like find a finger print and such). Mystery-o-matic is about temporal and spatial reasoning, with their own constrains and quirks. It's also open-source (https://github.com/mystery-o-matic/mystery-o-matic.github.io).
Why not both? My guess would be, they release one type of horrible thing early on, then graduate to some other horrible thing through short term degradation.
We switched out plastic containers for glass and silicone for the most part some time back. Personally I was just routinely disappointed with the quality of the tupperware-type things, so why not spent a few bucks more once and get something that lasts? It still will have a plastic top or parts but you can at least heat it up in the glass part.
Looking forward to more testing like this. I've been trying to consciously avoid anything combining "hot" with "plastic" though there's only so much you can do.
Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising. Spam and other processed meats and prepared foods also not too surprising (though what's with the Annie's organic mac and cheese being so full of it? Maybe it's the sauce?)... I think the tap water was the scariest one to me. Sure, you expect some but ... wildly unsafe levels?!
Are you looking at the results in the table on the main page? That is tap water treated with some purifying tablet, not straight tap water. There is plain tap water in the full database but it doesn't seem to have levels of anything in excess of established limits.
My mistake, I didn't see that part. I thought the tablet treatment was just something they did to prepare it for testing. Maybe the tablets kill the microfauna via microplastic overdose.
Manufacturers are putting more and more plastic into things to cut costs it seems.
My favorite pour over coffee maker almost entirely had water in contact with metal and glass during brewing. Glass reservoir, glass decanter, metal grounds basket - only rubber tubes going from reservoir to heating element.
When it died (your average coffee maker only lasts 5 years) all of their newer more expensive models had mostly plastic everything except for the decanter.
Also, is there an aggregate plastic danger metric? It would be great to develop an aggregate metric that combines the different types of plastics and multiplies them by their known potential dangers to the human body. I realize the multiples will change over time as more research comes in, but right now, there's no way to quantify BPA vs DEHP dangers.
The PlasticList site explores safety levels, including a discussion of aggregate levels across products and chemicals. It’s an interesting but frustrating read.
Initial data says they're at least bad for sea life. Doubtful it's good to have such durable micro materials bouncing around our lungs and digestive tracts. Stopping pollution is also much easier than cleaning up after the fact.
> Doubtful it's good to have such durable micro materials bouncing around our lungs and digestive tracts.
Having odd things in your lungs is bad. Having things bouncing around in your digestive tract means nothing. The whole point of the digestive tract is that you put untrusted materials into it.
Uh, smoke particles and mineral dusts are generally non digestible - and we’ve been eating smoked/cooked meats and slightly dirty things for at least as long as recorded history?
There's growing evidence, especially in the past few years with better studies, that suggests HPV is a significant driver, if not the most significant driver, of the increase in colorectal cancer among younger adults. I suspect it's been a disfavored explanation because of certain implications--implications which should be irrelevant and not even necessarily true, but I digress. The HPV vaccine should in theory be protective[1] so in the next decade or so it might become more clear even in the absence of additional direct investigation. Likewise, we should expect the incidence of oropharyngeal cancers to decrease, which probably not coincidentally has also risen among younger--20-50yo--adults. Notably, the HPV link is more clearly established.
[1] HPV16 and HPV18 being the variants most often identified in HPV-associated colorectal cancers[2], and which are targeted by HPV vaccines as they're the variants primarily responsible for cervical and anal cancers.
