Microsoft is either a 'Gulf of Mexico' purist or Bing Maps never gets updated

[Windows Central]

Bing Maps still shows "Gulf of Mexico" rather than "Gulf of Mexico," which appears on Google Maps and Apple Maps.

Microsoft is either a 'Gulf of Mexico' purist or Bing Maps never gets updated : Read more

 

[LightenSkies]

I just look a second ago on bing map. And it’s now updated to Gulf Of America.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I still see "Gulf of Mexico" in Microsoft Maps. I can't say that I particularly care either way. I do think changing names is silly, whether it's a military base (Fort Bragg is a fine name) or the Gulf of Mexico. Changing names is a hassle and renders older documents less usable in the future.

 

[John McIlhinney]

If I'm not mistaken, the change is IP based, i.e. if your IP originates inside the USA then you'll see "Gulf of America" while the rest of us see "Gulf of Mexico". It's a stupid change at the government level, although it's just another thing on the long list of things Tramp is using to distract from the real damage he's doing, but I have no problem with map providers showing what is an official name. I doubt that this is the only name that is presented differently based on the viewer's geography.

 

[Lurking_Lurker_Lurks]

If I'm not mistaken, the change is IP based, i.e. if your IP originates inside the USA then you'll see "Gulf of America" while the rest of us see "Gulf of Mexico". It's a stupid change at the government level, although it's just another thing on the long list of things Tramp is using to distract from the real damage he's doing, but I have no problem with map providers showing what is an official name. I doubt that this is the only name that is presented differently based on the viewer's geography.

Distraction is so painfully accurate. The criminal is also trying a rapid fire tactic to tire people down and get the media used to his nonsense. The ridiculousness of the first day executive orders seems planned and it's kinda already worked; after not even a month people are already tired of Trump and following his news cycle. It's really bad with how much of his agenda has been aimed at attacking basic civil rights. And stuff like "Gulf of America" does an excellent job of making a better headline .

 

[GraniteStateColin]

If I'm not mistaken, the change is IP based, i.e. if your IP originates inside the USA then you'll see "Gulf of America" while the rest of us see "Gulf of Mexico".

That seems reasonable, but at least in my case, I'm in the U.S., have the latest update to Maps (checked the Microsoft Store), and have installed the Feb 2025 Windows update, but still see Gulf of Mexico. So there must also be an element of a staggered rollout going on for this.

Regarding Trump, and I'd rather not get political here, but if he succeeds at cutting government and the deficit without inviting an attack by China (whether substantial economic escalation, cyber, or military), that will be worth all the rest of the noise, as far as I'm concerned. While I know those on the left don't like the language or the person, I hope both left and right can agree on the importance of reducing the debt -- whatever government program you support, whether a stronger military or more social programs, they all suffer when much of the money is just going to debt service.

 

[Dave47]

There are FOUR LIGHTS !

 

[kltye]

That seems reasonable, but at least in my case, I'm in the U.S., have the latest update to Maps (checked the Microsoft Store), and have installed the Feb 2025 Windows update, but still see Gulf of Mexico. So there must also be an element of a staggered rollout going on for this.

Regarding Trump, and I'd rather not get political here, but if he succeeds at cutting government and the deficit without inviting an attack by China (whether substantial economic escalation, cyber, or military), that will be worth all the rest of the noise, as far as I'm concerned. While I know those on the left don't like the language or the person, I hope both left and right can agree on the importance of reducing the debt -- whatever government program you support, whether a stronger military or more social programs, they all suffer when much of the money is just going to debt service.

Oh look, someone pretending to not be political and then immediately launches into a BS "both sides" argument

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Oh look, someone pretending to not be political and then immediately launches into a BS "both sides" argument

Not sure what you want me to do with that. I'd point out that my "political" comment (I'd say it's really more fiscal than political, but fair enough) was a response to other comments in an effort to bring us together over a hopeful common goal -- reducing the debt in this case. I did not initiate, but, to your point, I also didn't ignore those prior political comments, which I could have.

Regardless, did I say something with which you disagree? If so, challenge me on the facts. If I'm wrong, always happy to be corrected and learn something new. I don't think something is ever "BS," as you put it, merely for agreeing with one side, the other side, or both sides. Unless the point is in reference to a statistical analysis on opinions of others, something is either right (paying interest on debt takes money away from other options) or wrong (the Earth's atmosphere has more oxygen than nitrogen) or just a valid opinion (I prefer Xbox to PS and Windows to Mac OS) on its own merits, independent of what others think.

Nothing wrong with different opinions, but the required interest payments taking money away from other programs when carrying a high debt is not a matter of opinion. Now, you might hold other matters to be a higher priority, which is an absolutely fair opinion to have. No objection if that's yours. But at the same time, I'd hope we could agree that all else being equal, reducing the deficit and then the national debt would be a good thing.

 

[kltye]

Not sure what you want me to do with that. I'd point out that my "political" comment (I'd say it's really more fiscal than political, but fair enough) was a response to other comments in an effort to bring us together over a hopeful common goal -- reducing the debt in this case. I did not initiate, but, to your point, I also didn't ignore them, which I could have.

Regardless, did I say something with which you disagree? If so, challenge me on the facts. If I'm wrong, always happy to be corrected and learn something new. I don't think something is ever "BS," as you put it, merely for agreeing with one side, the other side, or both sides. Unless the point is in reference to a statistical analysis on opinions of others, something is either right (paying interest on debt takes money away from other options) or wrong (the Earth's atmosphere has more oxygen than nitrogen) or just a valid opinion (I prefer Xbox to PS and Windows to Mac OS) on its own merits, independent of what others think.

Nothing wrong with different opinions, but the required interest payments taking money away from other programs when carrying a high debt is not a matter of opinion. Now, you might hold other matters to be a higher priority, which is an absolutely fair opinion to have. No objection if that's yours. But at the same time, I'd hope we could agree that all else being equal, reducing the deficit and then the national debt would be a good thing.

You're presenting a false dilemma logical fallacy of "reduce national debt" or "do nothing". There are ways to reduce national debt that doesn't involve ridiculous steps or having teenage code monkeys rummaging through sensitive data and destroying actual peoples' lives.

Additionally, your original post of "noise is worth it if it reduces debt" is ridiculous - if it's something legitimate, why the need for noise? Why do we have elected officials (and also non-elected ones) that troll its population?

 

[GraniteStateColin]

You're presenting a false dilemma logical fallacy of "reduce national debt" or "do nothing". There are ways to reduce national debt that doesn't involve ridiculous steps or having teenage code monkeys rummaging through sensitive data and destroying actual peoples' lives.

Additionally, your original post of "noise is worth it if it reduces debt" is ridiculous - if it's something legitimate, why the need for noise? Why do we have elected officials (and also non-elected ones) that troll its population?

First, thanks for engaging. I appreciate it. I agree with you that there is not a binary choice of reduce debt or do nothing, but I disagree that I've presented it that way or any other false way. I specifically said, "all else being equal."

On the other hand, I do think it's a false binary to say, "if it's something legitimate, why the need for noise." Of course there's no need for the noise. What I said is that the noise would be worth it to me, as a small price to pay, if it gets us to a significantly reduced debt. To your point, and I agree with this part of what you said, it would be even better if we could get to a reduced debt without the noise.

Or to put it another way: I don't like the noise and the drama, but they're fairly minor negatives for me (just my opinions on which matters more to me). Noise and drama are also the natural result of the political differences in Washington -- the only way things get fully quiet is if the administration says nothing controversial, an effective impossibility given that the party out of power ALWAYS needs to fight the party in power for their own sake (their own voters and supporters demand it). The drama is definitely a negative for me, but one I'm willing to endure IF (we don't know yet what the ultimate outcome will be) the ultimate outcome is positive.

To be clear on my own take, I'm very much NOT an ends-justify-the-means guy. In fact, I think that can immediately become a justification for any horrible action. What I am is a don't-particularly-care-how-the-sausage-gets-made-as-long-as-it's-ethical guy.