5 ms·

When we're borderless, there's no border for your car to cross.

viraptor 3y ago
Yandex removing displayed borders doesn't move us in any way closer to borderless world in reality. No country is seriously considering it. It's not a canary for anything - they stopped displaying borders exactly because countries/people care about those a lot.
- persnickety 3y ago
  We stopped requiring photos on CVs because some employers cared about them a lot (in order to discriminate).
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    "we" is not all countries of the world.
    - persnickety 3y ago
      Sadly. It does't detract from my point, though: caring about something can result in bad consequences.
      - Chris2048 3y ago
        But it's categorically different. Removing pictures from CVs so that corps are unable to discriminate based on that image still maintains the concept of "employee". Doesn't removing borders effectively remove the concept of "citizen/national"?
        persnickety 3y ago
        The subject of a CV is the human, but the subject of a map is the place. Removal of borders removes the concept of a citizen, but maps are concerned with the concept of an area. Nothing of value is lost. In more practical terms, I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen, other than by drawing nation-state borders, or those that are concerned with immigration (but for those, it's a relevant concept).
        Chris2048 3y ago
        First, if you remove detail about a person from a CV, that person still has those characteristics. It's not clear what effect "removing borders from maps" has - if you are suggesting having no borders as in your original comment, or having them, but just removing them from maps. In the latter case it would be massively inconvenient to not know where borders are, if there are visa issues. Plus, there isn't really an equivalence to "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border". The appearance of a single, otherwise anon individual, versus international agreement on where the borders are seem to be v. different things. As such, interpreting as the former; "maps are concerned with the concept of an area" - they are as concerned with navigation as anything else, so include roads, and borders plus border stops. "I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen" no, but they usually name the country - I mention citizen from the perspective on how it impacts travel; presumably removing borders means there are no territories, and thus no countries; but a country is as much a collection of people (citizens) so both diminish, unless you maintain a territory-less concept of citizenship. Not clear to me "Nothing of value is lost" - tell me how this would impact, say, Israel? or anywhere bordering Russia. Or are you only taking from the about specific cherry-picked locales?
        persnickety 3y ago
        > "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border" The problem is closer to: "the presence of pictures on CVs is detrimental to someone due to outside bias", "the presence of borders on maps is detrimental to Yandex due to outside bias". Not quite the same mechanism, but similar in spirit. > they are as concerned with navigation as anything else All maps are concerned with an area, some with navigation. A map of the Moon is still interesting to some non-astronauts. I concede, if you use a map for navigation, a concept of a national border is still relevant. But in other cases, given the variety of possible geographical data, it rarely is.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > No country is seriously considering it Schengen says hi.
  - samus 3y ago
    These border checks are waived, not abolished. In times of crisis, they can (and were, during the Pandemic for example) reinstated. Countries can impose movement restriction for internal regions as well, but these carry a much higher legal overhead. Also, Schengen borders are transparent only for full EU residents. If your visa and right of abode is restricted to a particular country, the borders are still very relevant. Even for EU residents, the borders are still relevant as they demarcate places with quite different civil and penal law codes.
mchaver 3y ago
That's a big hypothetical. Mapping companies are not the arbiters of where borders exist. Knowledge of where de facto borders are is pretty useful for directions.
SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
A nice fantasy, but something tells me a borderless reality is not in our near term or distant future. Maybe by the time Star Trek is more fact than fiction
agent327 3y ago
How will you know which laws apply?
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  I guess the next logical step after the borderless society is a lawless one /s More seriously, as much as I’d love to live in a different world, borders are not going anywhere.

Yandex removing displayed borders doesn't move us in any way closer to borderless world in reality. No country is seriously considering it. It's not a canary for anything - they stopped displaying borders exactly because countries/people care about those a lot.

persnickety 3y ago
We stopped requiring photos on CVs because some employers cared about them a lot (in order to discriminate).
- Chris2048 3y ago
  "we" is not all countries of the world.
  - persnickety 3y ago
    Sadly. It does't detract from my point, though: caring about something can result in bad consequences.
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      But it's categorically different. Removing pictures from CVs so that corps are unable to discriminate based on that image still maintains the concept of "employee". Doesn't removing borders effectively remove the concept of "citizen/national"?
      - persnickety 3y ago
        The subject of a CV is the human, but the subject of a map is the place. Removal of borders removes the concept of a citizen, but maps are concerned with the concept of an area. Nothing of value is lost. In more practical terms, I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen, other than by drawing nation-state borders, or those that are concerned with immigration (but for those, it's a relevant concept).
        Chris2048 3y ago
        First, if you remove detail about a person from a CV, that person still has those characteristics. It's not clear what effect "removing borders from maps" has - if you are suggesting having no borders as in your original comment, or having them, but just removing them from maps. In the latter case it would be massively inconvenient to not know where borders are, if there are visa issues. Plus, there isn't really an equivalence to "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border". The appearance of a single, otherwise anon individual, versus international agreement on where the borders are seem to be v. different things. As such, interpreting as the former; "maps are concerned with the concept of an area" - they are as concerned with navigation as anything else, so include roads, and borders plus border stops. "I have not encountered maps that explicitly mention the concept of a citizen" no, but they usually name the country - I mention citizen from the perspective on how it impacts travel; presumably removing borders means there are no territories, and thus no countries; but a country is as much a collection of people (citizens) so both diminish, unless you maintain a territory-less concept of citizenship. Not clear to me "Nothing of value is lost" - tell me how this would impact, say, Israel? or anywhere bordering Russia. Or are you only taking from the about specific cherry-picked locales?
        persnickety 3y ago
        > "illegally discriminating based on seeing the border" The problem is closer to: "the presence of pictures on CVs is detrimental to someone due to outside bias", "the presence of borders on maps is detrimental to Yandex due to outside bias". Not quite the same mechanism, but similar in spirit. > they are as concerned with navigation as anything else All maps are concerned with an area, some with navigation. A map of the Moon is still interesting to some non-astronauts. I concede, if you use a map for navigation, a concept of a national border is still relevant. But in other cases, given the variety of possible geographical data, it rarely is.
sofixa 3y ago
> No country is seriously considering it Schengen says hi.
- samus 3y ago
  These border checks are waived, not abolished. In times of crisis, they can (and were, during the Pandemic for example) reinstated. Countries can impose movement restriction for internal regions as well, but these carry a much higher legal overhead. Also, Schengen borders are transparent only for full EU residents. If your visa and right of abode is restricted to a particular country, the borders are still very relevant. Even for EU residents, the borders are still relevant as they demarcate places with quite different civil and penal law codes.

mchaver 3y ago

That's a big hypothetical. Mapping companies are not the arbiters of where borders exist. Knowledge of where de facto borders are is pretty useful for directions.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago

A nice fantasy, but something tells me a borderless reality is not in our near term or distant future. Maybe by the time Star Trek is more fact than fiction

agent327 3y ago

How will you know which laws apply?

manuelmoreale 3y ago
I guess the next logical step after the borderless society is a lawless one /s More seriously, as much as I’d love to live in a different world, borders are not going anywhere.