Live data from Hacker News

This map is not upside down

maps.com

71–80 of 540 posts

Re: This map is not upside down

#73
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes. I know of places in america where numbers are sequential. I know of other places where they a sequential but increase by five.

Could you share some examples please? I'm not doubting you, just want to look at some maps.

I don't know how to do this... I also don't remember where anymore.

Re: This map is not upside down

#74
post #54

> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.

At one point a character in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum says "archetypes don't exist, the body exists" and then gives some sexual and reproductive examples, followed by > And high is better than low, because if you have your head down, the blood goes to your brain, because feet stink and hair doesn’t stink as much, because it’s better to climb a tree and pick fruit than end up underground, food for worms, and because y…

> so if two people or other creatures are fighting, one who is higher is generally at an advantage compared to one who is lower or lying on the ground

Tell that to a BJJ fighter.

Re: This map is not upside down

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would top-to-bottom benefit right-handed writers any more than left-handed ones?

And why would that make the top better than the bottom anyway? That's like saying the meal is worse after you finish it.

Because of Primacy Bias.

Re: This map is not upside down

#76

> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.

Really? Before you read this article you never associated being on top = good and being at the bottom = bad?

Re: This map is not upside down

#78

> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.

[deleted]

Re: This map is not upside down

#80
post #76

> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’ This, of course, is the point of the article. It was so predictable that it made me wonder: who is telling me that top is good and lower is bad? The articles themselves.

Really? Before you read this article you never associated being on top = good and being at the bottom = bad?

Probably as kid, but at some point in maturing you learn that what you consider good/bad is your own prejudice and working off that is going to cause social troubles.
Post reply on HN