Lenin was correct when describing The Economist as “a journal which speaks for British millionaires”, but honestly this cover goes HARD
This has a 1950s retro-futurist vibe, probably betraying that deep down, they know the US and Europe failed to bring the george jetson future they promised, and now it’s China’s turn to try. With Fusion power and mars missions coming from China in the next few decades, we’re witnessing massive self-deluded coping from western supremacists. I’m pry overthinking it tho.
It also accidentally shows they’re still stuck in the Cold War mentality. I bet some are outright secretly giddy to have a “big bad Red Menace” to fear.
Is that UN somehow in China’s orbit? Really?
The UN failed to find evidence of the Uyghur genocide, proving it’s a See See Pee shill.
Wait did they? Like they rescinded the accusation they made just this year?
Happy bread day.
Its all china in this glorious day.
Maybe they mean countries who appreciate Chinas genorsity and vote with China.
This implies that Xi wants Saudi Arabia and Iran to clash
Maybe they’re going at the same speed?
Swap China for America and you have the world according to The Economist
Delusion of the economist genuinely knows no bounds
They spend last 150 years trying to turn back entire science of economics, what did you expected.
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.
Pic goes hard
