https://codeberg.org/tenacityteam/tenacity

Bro, you’re getting expelled if the Dean finds out about this.

Personally, I think it’s for the better they remain separate projects for logistical reasons. I also understand why OHM went with CC0 for their license, and it was their (I think correct) choice to make it incompatible with the OSM one.

I know that’s vague, but mainly, I think OHM is better off not having to worry about OSM shenanigans, while OSM is better off being able not to have to worry about historic preservation.

Ah, you’re right. Brainfart. I forgot about that. I guess I can’t think of a way to contract it to a point then.

The hole through the center makes a hole around it inside the mug.

Yeah, the hole through the center is one hole (the “donut hole”). The handle is the other (the “handle hole”).

Topologically, the lip of the mug is a boundary, not a hole. This object is of genus 2 given it’s a 2-manifold.

Edit: The explanation below is the product of a brainfart.

But we can show this assuming the lip isn’t an abrupt boundary and that instead that the outer wall of the inner loop is part of the same side as the outside of the mug (i.e. that you can continuously walk on the surface from the outside past the lip without crossing an abrupt boundary, which more closely matches the physical reality of this mug).~

Watch this: imagine a loop around the hole of a donut. Now try to contract that loop down. Without cutting it, you can’t.

Now take a loop around the lip of this coffee mug. You can contract it to a point by bringing it all over the lip of the mug, then inside, along the outer walls, and then finally down to the bottom of the mug. It all meets up there. No hole. There’s the donut hole and the handle hole, but the colloquial “hole” is either a boundary if the lip is flat or not even a boundary if it continuously curves inward.

Dude, they would’ve had to write me out of the scene. As soon as Jim Rash drops “and all the black man gets is a plate of white lies”, I’m fucking gone.

Fun fact: you can see Gillian Jacobs (Britta) desperately trying (and failing) not to laugh in this Dean scene.

Topologically, that part is not a hole. The liquid basin not being a hole is where the joke in the OP originates, even: a standard coffee mug with a basin for coffee and a handle is homeomorphic (topologically equivalent) to a torus (a donut). And that’s because the handle is the hole, not the basin.

In the case of the OP, ignore the handle for a second just to simplify things. That’s a hollowed-out donut (torus) except that you’ve taken a part of that donut’s surface and cut it out. That area that’s been cut out isn’t topologically a hole; instead, you’ve just created a boundary on the 2-manifold (read: flexible surface).

Topology has rigorous, algebraic definitions under the hood, but that’s what’s going on in this picture topologically: you’ve taken a donut, glued it to another donut, and cut a “hole” (colloquial usage) in the double-donut’s surface, creating a boundary on the surface.

Edit: To hopefully justify this a bit intuitively for the standard coffee mug (not this abomination in the OP), the utilities problem is a classic toy problem in topology that

but

It’s a separate project with a separate license.

Okay, if a torus with a single patch of empty space on its surface is two holes, then this is three holes. But now I’m confused, because I don’t know if that’s true topologically. Otherwise, it’s just a two-torus with a perforation on its 2-surface.

Edit: I’ve been informed by a topologist friend that this has two holes and that the lip of the mug is just a boundary.

Edit 3: Ignore the case below if the lip is a smooth curve. I had a brainfart when thinking through the loop contraction.

Edit 2: So to clarify, that’s a boundary if the lip represents an abrupt transition to either side (i.e. if there’s no “curve” into and out of the mug).

Since that’s less realistic, let’s assume that you can smoothly walk from the interior surface of the mug to the exterior and show that it isn’t topologically a hole for that case either.

I’ve created a continuous loop around the two holes and the candidate “lip hole”. These loops are embedded in the surface of the mug. You can plainly see that you can’t contract the loop to a single point around the handle hole or the donut hole without crossing over the hole.

But now let’s take our blue loop (the lip loop) and trivially contract it down to a point.

1. Our loop is on the outside around the lip.

2. Take the loop inside of the lip since this is still a smooth, continous surface. The loop is now on the outer wall of the inner mug.

3. Now bring the loop down toward the bottom along the wall.

4. Contract the loop to a single point at the bottom.

In this case, it isn’t even a boundary anymore, and it provably isn’t a hole.

I’m hoping that we can skip spleens.

No. Do cool spleen facts. Link to medical research on the spleen. I want to learn more about the spleen; I want an expleenation.

But I’m hoping Dean Pelton stays a while.

(Also, OP, that is= URL parameter is just there for tracking.)

We’d ask that you didn’t try. Directing your energy toward improving OSM in your area and moving people away from the corporations kowtowing to Trump and other fascists is what makes an actual difference.

OpenHistoricalMap tracks that sort of thing. OpenStreetMap is strictly for what’s currently (and at least semi-permanently) there. For businesses that just closed, it’s a good idea to put a note saying something like “Formerly Dairy Emporium” (along with potentially, say, when it closed if known). This not only potentially helps confused users, but it also helps other contributors who might try to “correct” what seems like a mistake.

Editing and changing the info is ideal, because it preserves the edit history. A deleted object is a lot harder to find the edit history of.

something something ask me literally anything about using or contributing to OpenStreetMap or about what it is/the state of it. get hyperspecific; see if I give a fuck.

Source: reasonably long-time user and contributor

Don’t go talkin’ ‘bout that dang ol’ orgy, man, tell you hwat, dang ol’ g-gross, man.

🎵 Well I’m a peanut bar, and I’m here to say 🎵

It reminds me of this conspiracy that was circulating a few months back that Apple Maps had “deleted” cities and places in Lebanon to culturally erase it for Israel’s invasion.

In reality (which you could see by e.g. looking at Reddit posts from a few years ago), Apple Maps’ coverage of Lebanon was absolute unusable dogshit the entire time. There were complaints about how it wasn’t even usable for basic navigation in Beirut. The city of Tyre (which was misspelled “Tyr”) was still there despite being one of the hardest-hit cities by Israel’s invasion.

Which was, to be fair, staggeringly incompetent, but it was provably true. Apple Maps’ coverage sucked so badly that, at a surface level, it looked like somebody took an erase tool to a competent map.

I think a lot of people don’t realize how automated corporate maps applications are. Which can be a weakness for crowd-sourced data like OpenStreetMap when there aren’t enough contributors, but that democratization is also a huge benefit that anyone can see and fix issues. The main parts of Google Maps that aren’t automated are points of interest, and those are kept up-to-date thanks to the network effect where e.g. business owners see value in maintaining their information or users feel like they’re helping out (read: doing free labor for a trillion-dollar corporation).

So fwiw, the change was made official and updated in GNIS the day it changed on Google Maps, which uses GNIS behind the scenes. That same day, USGS said the name had taken effect in GNIS but that it was waiting for its maps to visually update.

I think this is a product of Google’s infrastructure being faster to automatically update with GNIS changes. The fact they didn’t step in to override it already shows that they’re willing to go along with this; I don’t think the fact it changed before USGS adds any significance to that bootlicking.

That is, I don’t assume Google manually intervened to make this happen faster.

Still, fuck Google Maps. I’m glad people are waking up to how this level of hegemony over maps gives corporations too much power.

Well in that case, it’s cool to see Fairphone using /e/OS!

Sorry, I realize that question could be interpreted in two ways: I meant for Fairphone not to try to get Graphene working on their phone. I know Motorola is trying to do that right now, for example.