Apparently it's a controversial... area.

I'm a Canadian. I'm proud to be a Canadian. I'm proud of my fellow Canadians. But gee whiz, we can sure be sensitive sometimes.

In my post two weeks ago, I pointed out how the Mercator projection exaggerates the surface area of Canada. Map-lovers loved my post; Canadians hated it. Many seemed to think I was trying to cast aspersions on Canada's proud place as the world's second-largest country.

Far from it. But as big a fan of Canada as I am, I'm also a fan of the truth: it's a tight race for second place. If we lost Labrador, we'd drop to fourth. This fact is rather disguised by the Mercator projection:



Poor China, they really get the shaft: they drop a place and end up looking a third as big in relation to their Russian neighbours. The United States is partially buffered from this ignominious fate by Alaska.

I understand why Google Maps uses Mercator: having north, south, east and west perfectly correspond to the edges of the map is handy when you're giving directions. Plus equal-area projections (there are many different ones, because there are many different ways to do this) just look weird, with their elongated, phallic Africa:


There are hybrid projections that do a pretty good compromise, but most of the best ones aren't rectangular, and that can be inconvenient if you don't happen to have, say, a hexagonal iPhone screen.

There. Go Canada. You're big, but my favourite fact about you is that you share the world's largest undefended border. Well, that and the fact that we have the world's largest island inside a lake inside an island inside a lake.

Oh, one more thing: Relevant xkcd.

Boston Celtics retired jerseys by year: when will they run out of numbers?


I'll admit I'm not a huge sports fan, but I am a huge numbers fan, and sports produces a lot of those. It also produces a lot of analysts: after all, there's lots of money riding on much of these numbers. So it's a bit of a challenge to find something original, and by definition it's going to be a bit frivolous.

It occurred to me that if teams keep retiring numbers and don't expand the pool of possible numbers, eventually they will run out. A bit of Googling revealed that the Boston Celtics have the most retired numbers of any major professional sports team. The NBA allows 100 numbers, from 1 to 99 and 00; they've retired 21 in the past 40 years, so a simple linear fit shows that at this rate they will run out in a couple of centuries.

I wouldn't worry about this problem too much; the Celtics have already shown how to solve it. When they retired Jim Loscutoff's jersey, he requested that they not retire his number (18), so their banner reads "LOSCY" instead. Later, Dave Cowens spoiled the gesture by wearing the same number and having it retired.

It occurs to me that I've seen these kinds of stepwise and extrapolation graphs on xkcd (e.g. here and here), except of course Randall Munroe is much better at them than me. So I decided to do a little tribute and rework the first graph xkcd-style using Dan Foreman-Mackey's xkcd D3.js template. My javascript skills being what they are, this was by far the longest part of this project; but it was a labour of love. I hope everyone will forgive me.