(There are of course other projections with other interesting features; or you could take the same projection but center the world differently etc.)
We're currently forced to use a projection that is strictly worse than what it was based on, the Mercator projection, created in 1569.
Everyone on this thread needs to read this presentation entitled "Use Literally Anything But Web Mercator":
https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/en-us/events/conf...
Let's say that a bit louder shall we:
USE LITERALLY ANYTHING BUT WEB MERCATOR.
Well, of course the answer is "it depends on what it is you want to learn from the map. If you're driving around and want to navigate, you'll take Mercator probably. But if you want to compare sizes of objects (like lakes or forests or islands or world states), especially when zoomed out, you'll prefer Gall-Peters.
Many argue, and I tend to agree, that when looking at a map of the whole world, you are typically better served with Gall-Peters in terms of what your interest is, and in fact, people _do_ use Mercator maps to semi-consciously compare sizes of things - and have false impressions about geo-politics because of it.
There is a whole science behind map projections and Google ignored it entirely when they created Web Mercator, which was a hack to divide the world into a quad tree. It was vaguely clever and utterly stupid at the same time.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140607003201/http://earth-info...
Why the downvotes for correcting this laughable statement? Web Mercator is well documented as being extremely inaccurate.
You've been repeating essentially the same comment, writing in all caps (in some comments), complaining about downvotes, telling everyone they are idiots one way or another. None of those things are likely to be welcome.
I feel justified in shouting in this case.