I'd argue with the "most accurate" designation the article uses. There are lots of projections out there. Use the one that best optimizes for the things you car

I'd argue with the "most accurate" designation the article uses. There are lots of projections out there. Use the one that best optimizes for the things you care about. This projection is neat, but has its own obvious tradeoffs (e.g., difficult to readily see how some landmasses relate to each other spacially. Antarctica in particular).