This is a fallacy of composition. the tradeoffs vary. The equal-area projection has zero (or close to) size distortion globally, at the expensive of shape inaccuracy as you approach the polar regions; Antarctica looks particularly wrong if you know anything about its coastline. But most people don't, and nobody really lives in Antarctica besides penguins.
It's not my favorite projection visually speaking but I can see why they would go with it since much of human history/ society/ economy etc. is a function of available land and so its kinda natural that people mentally prioritize size over shape. Shape matters a great deal too, but that's more at the local level. Nobody uses a global map for specific navigation or survey purposes outside of highly technical things like satellite navigation etc that occupy a negligible fraction of humans, and who as technicians are going to employ multiple projections rather than a single generic one.
Comments
Accuracy is too 'ideological' now. Sic transit gloria mundi.
No projection is accurate. All of them have tradeoffs.
This is a fallacy of composition. the tradeoffs vary. The equal-area projection has zero (or close to) size distortion globally, at the expensive of shape inaccuracy as you approach the polar regions; Antarctica looks particularly wrong if you know anything about its coastline. But most people don't, and nobody really lives in Antarctica besides penguins.
It's not my favorite projection visually speaking but I can see why they would go with it since much of human history/ society/ economy etc. is a function of available land and so its kinda natural that people mentally prioritize size over shape. Shape matters a great deal too, but that's more at the local level. Nobody uses a global map for specific navigation or survey purposes outside of highly technical things like satellite navigation etc that occupy a negligible fraction of humans, and who as technicians are going to employ multiple projections rather than a single generic one.