Lenin was correct when describing The Economist as “a journal which speaks for British millionaires”, but honestly this cover goes HARD

  • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
    20·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • CamaradaD@lemmygrad.ml
      12·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • Franfran2424@lemmygrad.ml
      5·
      2 years ago

      Happy bread day.

      Its all china in this glorious day.

      Maybe they mean countries who appreciate Chinas genorsity and vote with China.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        2·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • lxvi@lemmygrad.ml
          1·
          2 years ago

          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