Still Running on 1569
The map that hung on the wall in my classroom was drawn in 1569. Not based on something from 1569. Drawn then, and the shape of it has barely shifted since.
We had a stencil of it. A flat sheet of plastic with the continents cut out, and you ran your pencil around the inside of each shape until the world appeared on your page. Then we were marked on how well we’d reproduced it. Nobody in that room, and I’d include the teachers, thought to mention that the thing we were tracing had been drawn four centuries earlier to solve a problem none of us had.
I said that to Phil Whelan on RTHK Radio 3 this week and it wasn’t the inaccuracy that stopped him. Most people have heard by now that the map is wrong. It was the date.
RTHK Radio 3 | Morning Brew with Phil Whelan
Tuesday 22 September 2026 · 14 min 56 sec
Prefer to read it? The full transcript is at the foot of this piece.
What 1569 actually took
I want to give the year its due, because the reflex when you hear it is to file it under quaint, and that’s unfair to a remarkable piece of work.
Mercator never sailed. He worked in Duisburg, and what he assembled was other people’s evidence: the charts Portuguese and Spanish navigators had been building for decades in the portolan tradition, the ones that were actually getting ships across oceans and back.
It’s worth knowing what those charts were made of. Latitude came from sighting the sun or a star and reading the angle off an instrument. Direction came from a magnetic compass. Distance came from estimation, because nobody could fix longitude at sea and nobody would be able to for another two hundred years. So a working sixteenth-century chart was two measurements and an educated guess, carried home by men who’d been gone six months or a year or two years, and sometimes not carried home at all, because the ship didn’t come back.
The margin for error was a cargo and every soul aboard it. The sea was the freeway and the highway of its day, so an accurate chart wasn’t an academic nicety, it was the trading system itself. Get it wrong and the goods don’t arrive and the people don’t come home.
What Mercator added was the projection. He worked out how to stretch the latitudes so that a line of constant compass bearing, which curves on a globe, would lie down flat and straight on a page. That’s the whole invention, and it’s why the map still works for the job it was built for.
The bit they couldn’t do is worth a mention too, because it went somewhere. Fixing longitude at sea needed a clock that would keep time on a rolling ship, and the hunt for one ran the best part of two centuries before anybody built one that worked. The gap in the map is what drove the invention.
So this isn’t a story about people who didn’t know any better. It’s a superb answer to a question almost nobody asks anymore. That’s a far more uncomfortable category, because it’s the one most of our own habits are sitting in.
A good map, doing a job it was never given
Mercator’s map does one thing beautifully, and it’s still correct for that one thing. Everything since has been us using it for jobs it was never built for, which is what the United Nations voted on, on 4 September, asking schools, governments and technology companies to stop reaching for it whenever the relative size of countries matters. Greenland looks about the size of Africa on that map. Africa is around 14 times bigger. The vote itself, and the map being put up in its place, are worth their own read.
What I want here is the bit Phil and I got to afterwards.
Some maps are wrong on purpose, and say so
Phil got there before I did. The London Underground map, he said. Hong Kong’s MTR map. Neither looks anything like the city underneath it. Distances are invented, angles are straightened, the water is roughly where it should be and almost nothing else is, and they work beautifully, because nobody is using them to work out how far it is to walk.
So distortion isn’t the fault. Every map is a distortion, because you can’t flatten a sphere or a city without giving something up. The difference is whether the distortion still announces itself. The Tube map has never once pretended to be geography. Mercator’s map sat on a classroom wall for four and a half centuries doing exactly that, and quietly became, for most of us, not one useful rendering of the world but the shape of the world itself.
Coffee is coffee, and tea is tea
This is where Phil pushed.
Fine, he said. The map’s out of date. But we can’t go through life re-examining everything, can we?
No. And the answer I gave him on air matters more than the warning does. Coffee is coffee and tea is tea. We know what they are. What varies is how far in we go. Some people become connoisseurs, and they can tell you where the beans came from, what altitude they grew at, what notes are in the cup and why this year’s crop tastes different from last year’s. Other people want instant, and instant is entirely fine, and it’s still coffee. Neither person is wrong. They’ve just made different choices about depth on a thing they both already know.
Maps are the same. We see what we want to see in them, we believe what suits us, and we dig deeper in the places where digging deeper serves whatever we happen to be doing. That’s not laziness. That’s how anybody gets through a week.
What’s odd isn’t the choosing. It’s how collective the shallow choice has been on this one, and how well it’s held up under correction. This map has been disproven, publicly and repeatedly, for a very long time. It keeps being disproven. And the picture in our heads doesn’t move.
The same shape, in three other pictures
Once you’ve seen it, you start noticing it in places where it costs a good deal more than a wall chart.
The picture of Africa as small, poor and waiting is one. The continent’s population is on track to double by 2050, and the world’s fastest-growing megacities are now there rather than in Asia or South America, which is a shift in global urban geography that will take generations to reverse and almost nobody has repriced for.
The picture of low-income countries as a permanent category is another. In 2000, more than 30% of countries sat in that bracket. By 2025 it was 11.9%, and the places that used to be shorthand for poverty have climbed the ladder while the shorthand stayed exactly where it was.
The picture of a housing shortage as a shortage of houses is a third, and it’s the one closest to home, because what Australia is actually short of is the water, power and transport that has to be in the ground before a house can go on top of it.
Three pictures. All of them collective, all of them corrected in public, all of them still sitting there doing work they shouldn’t be trusted with.
Which brings us to the exam
On air I said that education is what sits on top of the map analogy, and I’d stand by that, because the exam is the purest version of the thing.
Go back to the stencil for a second. We traced the shapes, and then we were tested on whether we could reproduce them from memory. The mark wasn’t for understanding the world. The mark was for holding the picture accurately enough to put it back on the page.
That’s what an exam has mostly been. A memory test. And for most of human history it was a reasonable proxy, because memory was scarce and expensive to acquire, and somebody who could hold a great deal of it was genuinely more useful than somebody who couldn’t. Exams were just memory tests, and most of us were rubbish at them.
Memory is now the single thing machines do best. We stopped holding phone numbers years ago and nobody called it a crisis.
And yet the response across a good part of the system has been to protect the memory test harder. Handwritten papers are coming back. Devices are being collected at the door. The sealed room is being re-sealed.
The numbers make that difficult to hold
More than 50% of Australian university assignments now involve AI in some form, and roughly nine in ten students are using AI tools, on research the University of Technology Sydney published this year. Nine in ten isn’t a minority behaviour you police. It’s the weather.
The policing has costs, too, and they land on people rather than on systems. Australian Catholic University’s reliance on AI detection wrongly flagged around 6,000 students. Think about one of them. A student who did the work, wrote it themselves, submitted it, and then received a note saying a machine had decided otherwise, and who now has to prove a negative to somebody who has 5,999 other cases to get through. That’s not a policy problem. That’s somebody’s semester, and quite possibly their sense of whether the place is on their side.
TEQSA, the Australian regulator, has been telling institutions not to retreat entirely to conventional pen-and-paper exams, on the grounds that they don’t test the range of things a graduate now has to be able to show. That’s the regulator, saying the safe option isn’t safe.
What the exam turns into
The better direction was in the same research Phil and I talked about. Students in those programs are being taught to use the tools properly, inside the curriculum and inside the assessment, and what gets assessed shifts.
Finding is done. Searching is done. The machine does both faster than any of us and it doesn’t get tired. What’s left is what you make of what you found: whether you can tell the good from the rubbish, whether you can see the thing that’s missing, whether you can put two unrelated pieces together and get something neither of them had on its own.
Knowing a thing and knowing what to do with it have never been the same skill. We just haven’t had to separate them before, because the first one was hard enough to be worth marking. Now the first one is free, and the second one is the whole of the value, and we’re still writing exams for the part that’s free.
Phil played me Arthur C. Clarke
Halfway through, he came in with something he’d stumbled across: a clip of Arthur C. Clarke from 1979, talking about machines that would become more intelligent than us, and about the work that would go. Nothing to do with this, he said, and then in the same breath said it had everything to do with it.
He was right the second time, and it’s worth being precise about why. Clarke wasn’t predicting, in the way people use that word. He didn’t travel forward and look. He read what was already in front of him and followed it out, and he was unusually good at holding both halves at once. The imagining almost always arrives before the building, and the fiction is where a lot of the engineering starts.
What Clarke described in 1979 is also the argument that turned up with the steam engine, and I want to be careful here, because the comfortable version of that story isn’t honest. People who worked the mills lost their work. That was real, it landed on real households, and there’s nothing good to be said about it. What’s also true is that whole industries grew afterwards that none of those people could have pictured, and we can’t now imagine the place without them. Both things happened, and the second-order effects were the ones nobody had on the agenda. Any version of the story that gives you only one half is selling you something.
Phil put the Clarke point back on the table a few minutes later, on getting rid of the work nobody wanted. I’ve never met anybody who took a job for the drudgery of it. You took it hoping you’d get far enough up that you could hand that part to somebody else.
Where it costs something
Here’s the part that isn’t about maps.
You’ve got your own 1569 picture. Most of us have several. It might be a view of what you’re good at that was formed when you were twenty-six, or a belief about what a particular kind of customer wants, or a rule about how something has to be done that you inherited from someone who’s long since stopped doing it that way themselves. It doesn’t announce itself, because a picture never does. It just quietly makes some answers look obvious and some options look impossible.
On your own, the cost is the job you priced wrong, or the opportunity you didn’t ring back about, or the skill you never went near because you decided early that it wasn’t for you.
In a team, it’s the customer nobody chases anymore, because the last three didn’t buy and that hardened into a rule.
Across a whole organisation it’s bigger and slower and much harder to see. It’s which markets you’re in. It’s who you hire, and what you assume they should already be able to do. It’s what gets built, and what never makes it out of a meeting because everybody in the room was holding the same out-of-date picture and the agreement felt like evidence.
That last one is worth saying plainly. When everybody agrees immediately, that’s not confirmation. It’s a shared picture. And the most useful question anyone in the room can ask is when that picture was last checked against anything outside it.
So what do you actually do
Nothing elaborate, and it doesn’t take a consultant.
Take the two or three assumptions that the next year of your effort is sitting on. Write them down as plain sentences, the kind you’d say out loud to somebody, not the kind that appear on a slide. Then for each one, work out when it was last tested against something other than the confidence of the people who agree with you. Not whether it’s true. When it was checked.
Most of the time you’ll find the first two are fine and the third has been running on trust since about 2019, unexamined not because anybody was careless but because nobody had needed to look at it, right up until the week it quietly stopped being true. That one’s your 1569.
And you still get to choose your depth. You can be the connoisseur on the ones that matter to you and take the instant on everything else, and neither of those is the wrong answer. What you don’t get is to skip the question on the ones you’re building on, because those aren’t beliefs anymore. Those are load-bearing.
Phil asked me at the end what our version of the 1569 map is, and the honest answer is that it isn’t a thing, it’s a habit.
Because we say something has always worked doesn’t mean it should. Because we believe that’s the best way to do it doesn’t necessarily mean it is. We might find better ways, or different ways, or just slightly more advanced ways, which usually means nothing more dramatic than knowing a bit more today than we did yesterday, and being willing to use it.
Choose Forward.
Questions people ask about this
Did the UN ban the Mercator map?
No. The resolution passed on 4 September 2026 discourages its use where the relative size of countries matters, and encourages an equal-area map instead. Nothing is banned, and navigation is specifically left alone, because that’s the job Mercator’s projection was built for and still does well.
Why is the Mercator map still used if it’s distorted?
Because it solves a real problem. A straight line on a Mercator map is a constant compass bearing, which is exactly what a navigator needs. The distortion is the price of that property. The trouble isn’t the map, it’s four and a half centuries of using it for questions it was never answering.
Are universities banning AI?
No. Some are reintroducing handwritten, device-free exams, and one Australian university has an investigation underway into alleged cheating. At the same time, more than 50% of Australian university assignments now involve AI, TEQSA has advised institutions not to retreat entirely to pen-and-paper exams, and a number of programs are teaching students to use the tools as part of the assessment itself.
How do I know which of my assumptions to re-check?
Depth is a choice, and most assumptions don’t need examining. The ones that do are the ones carrying weight. If a year of your effort, your money or your planning is sitting on top of a belief, find out when that belief was last tested against something outside the group of people who already agree with it.
This post is based on my segment with Phil Whelan on RTHK Radio 3 Morning Brew, 22 September 2026.
Sources: UN News and UN General Assembly resolution on the world map (4 September 2026); University of Technology Sydney research on AI use in Australian university assignments (2026); TEQSA guidance on assessment reform; ABC News reporting on AI detection wrongly flagging students at Australian Catholic University (2025).
Read the full transcript of the segment (RTHK Radio 3, The Brew, 22 September 2026, 14 min 56 sec)
Machine transcription, lightly unedited. Phil introduces me as “Morris Miselowski” and the model renders it variously as Maurice, Misolowski and Missalowski. The segment opens with a jingle Phil had made.
Have a little bit of Maren Morris there. Talking of which. That is called Parachute. Morris Miselowski, live from Melbs. How are you? I’m very, very good. Happy Tuesday, everyone. Happy Tuesday to you. Now, Morris, I’ve got a present for you. Oh, thank you. So sit tight and get this. The future’s bright with Morris by your side. Turn up the day. Let tomorrow be a guide. Morris on Radio 3. Bring a brighter day to me. Morris on Radio 3. Where tomorrow starts with me. Your next day starts here. The future’s bright with Morris. On Radio 3. Yeah baby. Now you exist. What about that? Yeah, I love it. Can you make me a promise that’ll go on low rotation? He says, I’ve got nothing to do. That’s going to go on high rotation, mate. Anyway, let’s talk about maps, Maurice. If you want to find out what we’re on about, go to his blog, morrisfuturist.com, and everything will be revealed. What do you got? A quirky, interesting story that I think actually tells a lot. Most of us, when I say the geography of the world, and we think about the map, and we all see this flat rectangle, not the world but the map that was in our school, you know, the school yard and all that kind of things. And we were taught to look at it with Africa and Australia and Asia and all those countries there. We can all spot them and it all looks perfect. Looks exactly like it should be. The quirk behind that is that map was built or designed by a guy called Mercator. Oh yeah. And he designed it in 1569. I mean, I thought you could say something about the 1970s but no. No. The map that we all have on the wall that we all think is right, that we opened up the Atlas, I don’t know whether they still sell Atlases but I had to have one every year at school, never used it. That map that we all look at and we all think is exactly right, Africa is that size, Europe is that size, all of that is built on 1569 by a series of sailors from around the world that Merkator sent out. I mean I don’t have to say, remember that nobody had anything in those days, there was no internet there was no yeah so he would literally send sailors out and they would have a piece of paper and a map that had been drawn before and he would say before you, before you nudge the Cape of Horn, could you do a couple of squiggles on the line and do a couple of measurements? Yeah. And of course it was more precise than that. And then when they came back three, six, 12, 18 months, two years later, whatever it was, they would hand over that bit of squiggle to him with their, with all their bits. And he would then assemble that. So the map has not been touched in 1569. We’re gonna have satellites, we have complete millimeter perfect understanding. Yeah. What happened in the last few weeks? I mean, this is not earth shattering but I think it’s really telling. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Was it last week, 4th of September, so a couple of weeks ago, the UN, it has nothing else to do with anything, you know, the UN is looking for a cause. What they said, and it’s not often that I agree with them, I must say, that’s a bit political, but sometimes I find them a bit stretchy. But in this case, I think they’re actually right. They said, look, let’s not forget the map that we have. We all love it, we all think it’s right. But can we start to think about a map, and there is a map that that they named, called Equal Earth. Equal Earth was not built in 1569. Is it in art? Can we all see it? It literally is a map that was designed over the last decades or so and updated with all of the up to minute information from satellites, from tornadoes, from everything. So it’s millimeter perfect of how the earth actually looks, how big each of the continents are, how big each of the islands are. And what you get when you do that a surprise for most people if you look at the map and that is that Africa that we think is small and and it’s much almost the same size as Greenland. Well we don’t anymore but I know what you’re getting at. Yeah it’s actually much larger that Africa is three times the size of Greenland and when you look at Europe and when you begin to look at North America on this map they’re still where they were but what you’re seeing now is something built to scale and we get an understanding of how big the physical content is, in comparison to what we’ve grown up with. to blog piece on this week and that is that if we have this map and I was brought up with it and to test on it, you know, all the grades that I had and had to say what was there, what other things have we grown up with or what other things do we believe to be true? 100% rigidity, everybody follows them, can’t be wrong because everybody can’t be wrong. But what is it that we’re following that’s kind of like this map? It’s kind of the truth, but really so far from it, it doesn’t matter. But then again, it doesn’t matter. Well, I think that would have been done by chance. You’re talking about 1500 and whatever. But some stuff has not been done by chance. I mean, an obvious thing is underground maps of London underground. Hong Kong’s MTR map. Of course, it doesn’t look like that, but it’s easy for us to read. Yeah, it is. And it was more than just maps I was on about. It was really the thoughts that we have in our minds, the things that we think are absolute, the way that we follow things, the way we understand things, the way one person is wrong, another person is right. The way one country has the ability to say something over another country. All of those things without entering into the politics of any of them are all preconceived ideas that we agree are right for whatever reason and whoever we are, as many or as few wheezes there are, agree that it’s right. And we hold it like this map. We hold it sacred and Africa is the size it is, Europe is the size it is and it is exactly what it is. But then you look at it and everybody would say, well 1569 just didn’t have the technology it did today. There was nothing untoward about it. They weren’t trying to hide anything. In fact, this map was important because the only way you traveled the world then was by ship. And that’s where all of the trade, literally all of the trade, everything that happened on the seas had to have the most accurate maps possible. So the seas were likely more accurate than the… Well the seas were the highways and the freeways of today. I mean, absolutely. So it was imperative you could literally lose a boat, lose all of the souls on board. You could not get cargo backwards and forwards if you didn’t have accurate maps and where the winds were and how far it was to hit land. All those things were imperative. 1569, the other thing I take. out of it is how incredible the technology of 1569 was. Forget the plug-in stuff we’re talking about now. But as I said, imagine how difficult and how long this task would have taken to put together and how many different people would have been involved and the section that they used, which was that really interesting device that the ships carried that had a bit of a compass on it and, you know, where you looked in and looked at the sky, looked at the stars and tried to measure all those kinds of things were the technology of the day and they were incredible because it’s also the same technology used on this map that actually gave us the time as we know it. Because time is derived from the movement of the stars, the moon, the sun and all of that came from these same measurements. Finally you know you’re talking about groundbreaking developments way back when. Nothing to do with this but I stumbled across a little documentary clip of Arthur C. Clark in 1979 he predicted AI absolutely predicted it it was it was uncanny watching it I mean he nailed it down he’s going and this you know they’ll become more intelligent than us and da da da da and people will be out of jobs and I immediately thought of you I’m sorry it’s got nothing to do with this but I immediately thought it has absolutely to do with it yeah it does because again that’s this that’s this notion that we have in our head that we believe to be true or not and we base all of our thoughts and our opinions and facts on it that. Yeah I mean Arthur C. Clarke was incredible because he could, he could, I mean not look into the future, he wasn’t predicting as such. It’s not like he said that he travelled forward and saw what happened. He nailed it then Maurice, I tell you. Yeah and that’s my point, he was able to look at what was around him at the moment and then look at what was possible and put the two together into a really interesting landscape that more often than not for him because he had the ability to be able to stitch the two really well together. I tell you what made me think of you, he started going on about people will be out of jobs and they’re going to need to re-adapt? Yeah, that’s a bit too far, but we always do that. We’ve always done that with technology. That’s been for millennium, literally, when the steam engine came in, the same thing was said. true, but it wasn’t. It was true because those people that had jobs that were taken over by steam in some way the motor of it ran and did things like people that worked in mills or trains which didn’t exist, they would mostly coal before then. They lost their jobs. There’s nothing good to be said about it just like today. But a whole lot of new industries grew up out of it. And all of us cannot imagine a world that doesn’t have those industries in them. He was on about the the so-called mundane jobs going. Exactly the stuff that I’ve heard you talk about. Yeah. Crazy. 1979, though, Maurice. That was pretty brilliant, actually. It is. It’s phenomenal. It’s phenomenal. And really what it takes to go back onto this, just for that purpose. No, not to take you away, but that’s exactly the point of today, that what he was able to do was to say, yeah, the map seems right, but maybe it’s not. And he began to question, to me, the most important thing we can do is to question, not for the sake of being argumentative, but just to see if the facts that we’re basing our thoughts on, even though everybody else says they’re right, are they? Is there actually credible evidence for what we’ve think and what we believe and what we know in inquired records and what we know to be true? In this case whenever I tell anybody that the map is 1569 everybody begins to think well is Is it true? It’s interesting though. I mean, where does this, where does this, which direction does this point us into? Because you’re talking about things we think we know and I can’t help thinking, things like fake news, which is just BS basically, and social media and, okay, everybody’s on Zuckerberg and their cases at the moment, but did they do us a favour by making us challenge ourselves? Is that to us to do it or not? I think absolutely. I think whenever we’re challenged, it’s a good thing. Again, as long as we take it with the right amount of salt, we shouldn’t challenge everything in our lives. Coffee is coffee, tea is tea. Some things are just not worth it. You can have better coffee, better tea, by that’s what I mean. Some people get it, some people are connoisseurs of it. Most people what we have is good enough for me, especially a cup of tea is a cup of tea. But whatever it is, you know, we have to really understand is worthwhile us digging deeper. And if it’s something that’s important to us, if we base a lot of our thoughts, our philosophies, our beliefs on it, maybe we should scratch the surface a little bit for other things, maybe we should reserve our brain power for better things. There’s no right or wrong answer, but the fascinating thing always is just thinking a bit deeper. And kind of the story that we’ve used a few times over the years is education. And I think education to me is really what sits on top of this analogy of the map. But yes, I’ve said to you, we used it in school yards, we were all tested on it, we had to be able to draw it. And we believed it without question. Yeah. Did you ever have, I mean, I’m just being nostalgic now, when I went to school we had stencils. And the stencil was something you used, you put your pencil around it and it drew like an elephant or whatever else, and it drew it perfectly. We had a stencil of the world map, and that was exactly what it was. Yeah, yeah, it was a plastic, you know, it was a flat plastic thing, and in it was carved out, you know, all the, all the continents of the world, and you drew with your pencil around it, and on your page came this image of the Atlas. But going into education, I’ve asked, you know, we’ve discussed many times, and I’ve done it with lots of clients on stage, and everywhere else, is this thing called AI, that neither of us are really sure he’s going to take off since he ingest. But now education has really got their knees up against it or their B’s and a bonnet, whatever you want to do. AI, what places does it have in education? And they’re fighting against it the same way of this old map of education that we had for some reason seems to be so perfect. Are they fighting against it, Morris, all the way kids are using it? Oh, no, they’re fighting against everything. And they is such a big word. But the education system more than the people in it. The system is fighting against it. A lot of that fight is love that they’re so unsure about what is right and what is wrong and what students of tomorrow. should learn and shouldn’t, that they’re kind of being a bit edgy about it and saying, well, maybe we just won’t release everything. But I just don’t get how tight we are about it. And there’s something else I wrote about it on the blog this week is around the notion of AI and education and testing and how many students use AI now. I mean, not surprisingly how many students use AI. In Australia, it said that more than 50% of Australian university assignments now involve AI and roughly nine intense students use AI tools. That was a research piece that came out only two months ago. So nine intense students is pretty much not everybody, but close enough to everybody. Do you think they’re using it proactively? They’re using it to do? In this case, for this research and this research piece, yes, what they’re saying is that the students behind this are being taught how to use AI appropriately for them to be able to use as part of the curriculum And also part of the exam process and the outcome of it is analysis. It’s not search anymore because search and finding is done by technology. But what do you do once you found the information? How much sense of it do you make? How much purpose is there? And that’s where the exams and studies takes forward now. I guess one of the things that I must find this clip for you, the thing that Arthur C. Clark was saying, basically use it properly and you can get rid of all the rubbish jobs that take up too much time and you can spend more time being creative yourself. Made sense. Well, yeah, you can do more human things. I mean, whether that’s creative, whether that’s anything else, but what it does is to allow you. I don’t know anyone who ever took a job for the drudgery of it. You know, the Monday morning in a junior now, and I get, you know, I mean, nobody did that. You hoped you hoped you worked your way up enough to get a junior or or two I see or somebody to do all that stuff. You don’t want to do AI is kind of that already in some ways. I’m not advocating everything, but in some ways. So tell me before we say goodbye, what the main thing going forward is that you see is our version of that 1500s map. Nice and simple. Again, it really is just questioning what we do and what we have. To me, it’s the notion that because we say something has always worked doesn’t mean it should, because we believe that that’s the best way to do it doesn’t necessarily mean it is. We might find better or different ways to do it, or we might just find more advanced ways, meaning that we know a little bit more than we did yesterday, and we can apply that in a way that we couldn’t have before. Right, well that’s just tickling the surface. morrisfuturist.com, check out the blog bit and his whole very long article, isn’t it? Very well. Take care mate, thank you for your time. Love it. Maurice Missalowski live from Melbs, mainly cloudy few showers, isolated thunderstorms because we have a thunderstorm morning until at least one. Light and moderate easterly winds, fine for the next few days and quite dry.
