Lenin was correct when describing The Economist as “a journal which speaks for British millionaires”, but honestly this cover goes HARD
Lenin was correct when describing The Economist as “a journal which speaks for British millionaires”, but honestly this cover goes HARD
The article is as accurate to real life as those planetary orbits.
It’s atomic
That’s not what atoms look like either. In fact it’s even less accurate if it’s meant to be an atom than if it was planets. The planetary model of the atom was replaced in the 20th century by the Bohr model and later quantum orbital theory. At least the planets are actually spheres moving in a circular path, electrons most certainly are not.
Are you really going for the fact that they aren’t using s,d,p orbits? You can still use a simple orbital map where it’s practical to do so, the only thing that maters at most levels is the outside orbital and how far it is from complete in which direction. But it’s an artistic depiction of an atom. You can find pictures that have the same structure. It’s meant to be immediately recognizable. If you were going to be critical it would be for how bloated the nucleus is. You wouldn’t do that though because it’s an artistic depiction. It’s not trying to convey an accurate model of an atom. It’s trying to model a geopolitical relation while harking to the atomic model.
First you misidentify it as planetary and now you’re saying that the problem is that it isn’t accurate enough. Talk about a headache
Dude I was making a joke about how that article about Chinese politics is totally not based in reality and neither is their cover image.
Better to drop it. You made a dumb comment. We all do it. Trying to defend a bad position is a bad habit.