The car has always been the critical factor, ever since F1 started in the 50's. Hell, even in the predecessor, the Grand Prix racing of the 20's and 30's, the car was the critical factor.
That still does not diminish the fact that a superb driver will utterly wipe the floor with a merely good driver, in the same car
If by "wipe the floor with" you mean do 2 tenths of a second a lap faster... I would agree. A lot of teams certainly prioritize getting the cars set up in favour of the preferred driver which results in most of the difference between drivers these days. All the drivers are really good nowadays though. It's not like the Fangio days where you could be an aging chain-cigarette smoking chubby and still win championships.
Senna was legendary in the 80's but in all-realities, the competition is so tight these days all the way up the various series from Karting on up that there are probably several "Sennas" on the grid these days... and there isn't more than a few tenths of a second between them. The rest of the difference is all car. Even the difference between teammates in supposedly the same car is down to better engineering staff and preferential setup.
Shaming pedestrians for crossing safe roads (I assume they are not suicidal) while the president makes himself an all-powerful dictator makes a fine country indeed. I'd rather have a country where corruption is automatically shamed.
By definition, future God-Emperor, "Gee KingPin" cannot be corrupt because he is the law.
This is building a world I don't particularly want to live in.
Indeed, it's not like this system couldn't be used to pick out who doesn't give a standing ovation at a communist party rally, or identify who doesn't smile and salute as the military parade goes by.
The basic problem with F1 is that it's too expensive to be competitive. Back in the 70s garage teams could win, but now even the guys just there to make up the numbers and provide a full grid are very well funded.
It's at the point now where the only way to win is to spend vast amounts on the latest technology. Only a few teams can afford to do it, and they all demand rule changes to make the technology more applicable to road cars so they can justify the expense. And of course, the rule changes favour the well funded teams while making it harder just for the poorer ones to stay legal.
This is also why it's so boring. Every year, one team gets a big technological advantage and dominates. There is little competition, except between their own two drivers. The other teams can't catch up because mid-season improvements to the car are very limited, to keep costs down and allow poorer teams to be a little a little bit competitive.
I'd say the problem is more the strict rules than the money, although the two go hand in hand. In the old days you could innovate and do something radical and sometimes it would pay off. Nowadays as soon as someone does that they ban it to make all cars look the same.
Occasionally you get a team without money doing well. Remember Brawn?
Well everyone's safe if you manage to completely avoid them...
That's hard to do though. Google owns double-click that collects data from millions of websites. Apple and Facebook have their own advertising arm and collects data from millions of websites.
Even if you always search with Duck Duck Go, don't own anything apple, and never had an Apple account. There's a good chance those three companies still have extensive data about you.
if you told me 1 in 5 college students knew what crypto currency was I'd be skeptical. Telling me 1 in 5 are using student loans to gamble on it is just ridiculous.
If you told me 1 in 5 college student made crap up on surveys... I would believe that.
I remember being that age, I remember I used to always put nonsense down on surveys, I never answered accurately. College aged students are the least reliable group to give surveys to.
There are two companies I will NEVER buy a cellphone from, Apple and Samsung. The tech world would be better off without either of them.
I disagree; whereas, I think Apple and Samsung are overpriced for what they are, they help spur on innovations in other phone manufacturers. I probably won't buy an Apple or a Samsung again personally, but I hope to benefit from their competition in the market driving new features.
Probably a mistake. you really shouldn't trust any of them.
True, the only thing that makes Facebook worse is probably that they are bigger than the others. They have more data and probably more business connections to sell it to.
No one should ever use their real name on a social media account. Nor should they allow access to contacts, and other invasive permissions or give a social media company their phone number. Even better is not to sign up in the first place.
A billionaire who nails lots of hot chicks. Yeah, it must be so awful for him...
On the surface that sounds great- but never getting a genuine emotional connection from a woman, or repeat encounters doesn't sound great. Love making gets much better the more you get to know someone and you each learn to please the other better.
A bunch of one time encounters with skanky adult film stars doesn't measure up and is like a lot of other things about his life- going for the shine and not the real substance.
The problem is that in today's culture, it seems like 'getting wasted' is the objective of drug use. Drink some beer, take some speed and maybe some shrooms, man. Get bent.
I'm not a druggie, but I don't see why "getting wasted" is necessarily a problem. If they're not driving, not hurting anyone else, and not taking something addictive, so not likely to turn to crime to fund an addiction (such as the shrooms you mentioned above- which are non-addictive), why is that a problem?
If someone wants to take shrooms to hallucinate or "get wasted" why is that a problem for you? From what I understand, no one has ever had a medical emergency due to taking them, and you can't get addicted to them because each subsequent dose you become more immune to. Why do you care if they take that particular drug?
If they did this for a day or two, it would be the fault of that one percent of the users. After a month or two it would be the fault of the Reddit moderators and owners for putting up with the one percent of the users. After many years, all the remaining users are now to blame for putting up with the Reddit moderators and owners who put up with the one percent of the users.
I've been a moderator of a few forums over the years (not Reddit). The obvious bad-eggs don't last long, they're easy to isolate and remove. A lot of the problems come from people who like to do the wind-up but they do it subtly. People who do just enough to provoke a conflict (sometimes just stoking the fire and sitting back). They never do one act that by itself is bad enough to get them the boot, but they do lots of winding-up, getting other people to overreact. They are the real problem of most forums, and they're hard to justify booting for a single act. They know what they're doing, and they do it slyly.
I'm pretty sure this isn't just Reddit but anywhere. 1% cause the problems. You get a few ass-hats who see themselves as too good for the rest of the forum.
and yet from there he could have just taken the gondola in Palm Springs up to the top of Mt San Jacinto and gotten almost 10x higher than he did. Or hike to the top of Mt Whitney, and just look out to the east. Or for about the same altitude, just go to Chicago, go to the top of Sears Tower. Tgen explain how on a clear day one can see over to Michigan, and reconcile why one cannot see it from Lake Shore Drive.
If he had done that he wouldn't have had his 15 minutes of fame or have a topic on Slashdot about him. He is getting "press" for flat earth by doing a stupid stunt like this. Not sure how many people he will convince (probably not many), but it's bringing attention to the fact that there are people who still think the earth is flat.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
If it is opt-in, then only those who can afford being away from their job for 1-6 years (depending on how it is implemented) will opt-in. Biasing the pool. If it is not opt-in, those who cannot afford such a breach in their employment history will refuse to answer when selected.
One would be paid whilst serving the nation by the nation. The same as what happens today. Congressmen receive a salary once they're elected.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
But you either have to be able to afford the time not at your job, or not have a job to miss out on anyway. Either way, bad representation.
Not all...see above point.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
Until it comes to actually trying to get anything done. This will result in a perpetual deadlock, only interrupted when a skilled liar pushes an action.
There wouldn't necessarily be ANY parties in the sorti-elected government. They might separate themselves into groups once elected, or associate with parties. Compare it to today though where as many as 10%-50% of people prefer a third party to the main party (depending on who you believe)... What % of senators are third-party or in either house? Very few. You need the backing of one of two main parties to win an election- even though a significant portion of the country identify with neither party.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
HAHAHAHAHA! They'll be the ones offering catering services at the votes!
They can't fund the election of the representatives because the representatives don't have any election costs. All they could possibly do is bribe the representatives (which is already illegal) and would result in crippling fines on the lobbyists and expulsion/jail time for the reps and lobbyists offering the bribes.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon
What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon?
Predicting the distant future on a timeline is always a futile task. Certainly no time in the next decade will UBI make any sense. Let's reevaluate in 10 years and see if we're any closer. UBI only makes sense if there is a significant portion of the population unable to get decent work (and not just from a temporary recession). Once 25-40% of people can't work, and have no prospect of a job in the long term even if they retrain, then it's time to look at UBI and see if that might benefit the country as a whole. Right now, anyone can get a job, it might not be one they want or consider fitting their station in life, but anyone can make a living wage if they are willing to look a while and do what they consider demeaning work.
At this point in USA history it is really time to make a stand towards eliminating our party system. The easiest way to do that is get a few big players campaigning on independent tickets, or small third parties with the goal of gaining the 5-10 percent for national recognition and then start winning overall elections once the big parties have begun faltering.
Until that happens we will see the same mess repeating that has been for the past 200+ years of American History.
Yeah, it's sad that so many of the founding fathers had the right idea (that political parties were a bad idea), and now we have an institutionalized system that pretty much guarantees an ongoing 2 party system.
I've always liked the idea that one of the houses (probably representatives) be taken over by a Sortocracy (aka lottocracy) , like was in place in Athens and many other Greek city states. Basically, the idea is that representatives are chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens. Yeah, you get a few crack-pots in that way, but there are many benefits.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people. 2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign. 3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts. 4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you. 5) Representatives do what they think is right, not what they think will get them elected (goes back to point 1).
It's the best way to get a truly representative body and not the polar ends of the spectrum that you end up with with party elected politics.
The entertainment of the 2020 Democrat primaries is going to be a lot more interesting than even the Republican 2016 primaries were.
Who will win? Old traditional Democrats or one of the new variety of young Leftists?
It's going to be a joke like the 2016 primaries were- and probably end up with some ridiculous extremist winning the nomination. UBI guy, Bernie Sanders, Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey? Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please? Why are all the names being put forwards either extremists or just plain bonkers.
What amuses me is that I haven't seen a single crypto coin ad.
All these companies joining forces to ban these ads- and I've never seen a single one anyway. It's like the government protecting me from dragons and having a dragon defense task force. There are no dragons to protect me from.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon and too radical, especially for the US. He's not going to get his party's nomination, and if he does, it's 4 more years of Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
The car has always been the critical factor, ever since F1 started in the 50's. Hell, even in the predecessor, the Grand Prix racing of the 20's and 30's, the car was the critical factor.
That still does not diminish the fact that a superb driver will utterly wipe the floor with a merely good driver, in the same car
If by "wipe the floor with" you mean do 2 tenths of a second a lap faster... I would agree. A lot of teams certainly prioritize getting the cars set up in favour of the preferred driver which results in most of the difference between drivers these days. All the drivers are really good nowadays though. It's not like the Fangio days where you could be an aging chain-cigarette smoking chubby and still win championships.
Senna was legendary in the 80's but in all-realities, the competition is so tight these days all the way up the various series from Karting on up that there are probably several "Sennas" on the grid these days... and there isn't more than a few tenths of a second between them. The rest of the difference is all car. Even the difference between teammates in supposedly the same car is down to better engineering staff and preferential setup.
Larry has his own private Hawaiian island to retire to... if I were him, I would retire already!
If Larry were you, he'd probably say that if he were Larry he'd retire.
Shaming pedestrians for crossing safe roads (I assume they are not suicidal) while the president makes himself an all-powerful dictator makes a fine country indeed. I'd rather have a country where corruption is automatically shamed.
By definition, future God-Emperor, "Gee KingPin" cannot be corrupt because he is the law.
This is building a world I don't particularly want to live in.
Indeed, it's not like this system couldn't be used to pick out who doesn't give a standing ovation at a communist party rally, or identify who doesn't smile and salute as the military parade goes by.
The basic problem with F1 is that it's too expensive to be competitive. Back in the 70s garage teams could win, but now even the guys just there to make up the numbers and provide a full grid are very well funded.
It's at the point now where the only way to win is to spend vast amounts on the latest technology. Only a few teams can afford to do it, and they all demand rule changes to make the technology more applicable to road cars so they can justify the expense. And of course, the rule changes favour the well funded teams while making it harder just for the poorer ones to stay legal.
This is also why it's so boring. Every year, one team gets a big technological advantage and dominates. There is little competition, except between their own two drivers. The other teams can't catch up because mid-season improvements to the car are very limited, to keep costs down and allow poorer teams to be a little a little bit competitive.
I'd say the problem is more the strict rules than the money, although the two go hand in hand. In the old days you could innovate and do something radical and sometimes it would pay off. Nowadays as soon as someone does that they ban it to make all cars look the same.
Occasionally you get a team without money doing well. Remember Brawn?
I'll tune in when they start allowing autonomous race cars.
It's been more about the car than the driver for 25 years already. Once it's autonomous it will be even more predictable.
Well everyone's safe if you manage to completely avoid them...
That's hard to do though. Google owns double-click that collects data from millions of websites. Apple and Facebook have their own advertising arm and collects data from millions of websites.
Even if you always search with Duck Duck Go, don't own anything apple, and never had an Apple account. There's a good chance those three companies still have extensive data about you.
if you told me 1 in 5 college students knew what crypto currency was I'd be skeptical. Telling me 1 in 5 are using student loans to gamble on it is just ridiculous.
If you told me 1 in 5 college student made crap up on surveys... I would believe that.
I remember being that age, I remember I used to always put nonsense down on surveys, I never answered accurately. College aged students are the least reliable group to give surveys to.
There are two companies I will NEVER buy a cellphone from, Apple and Samsung. The tech world would be better off without either of them.
I disagree; whereas, I think Apple and Samsung are overpriced for what they are, they help spur on innovations in other phone manufacturers. I probably won't buy an Apple or a Samsung again personally, but I hope to benefit from their competition in the market driving new features.
Why is Apple not on the list? They and Google surely have much more data on you than anyone else on the list
Apple and Google are certainly as bad as facebook, but harder to avoid if you have a smart phone.
Probably a mistake. you really shouldn't trust any of them.
True, the only thing that makes Facebook worse is probably that they are bigger than the others. They have more data and probably more business connections to sell it to.
No one should ever use their real name on a social media account. Nor should they allow access to contacts, and other invasive permissions or give a social media company their phone number. Even better is not to sign up in the first place.
A billionaire who nails lots of hot chicks. Yeah, it must be so awful for him...
On the surface that sounds great- but never getting a genuine emotional connection from a woman, or repeat encounters doesn't sound great. Love making gets much better the more you get to know someone and you each learn to please the other better.
A bunch of one time encounters with skanky adult film stars doesn't measure up and is like a lot of other things about his life- going for the shine and not the real substance.
The problem is that in today's culture, it seems like 'getting wasted' is the objective of drug use. Drink some beer, take some speed and maybe some shrooms, man. Get bent.
I'm not a druggie, but I don't see why "getting wasted" is necessarily a problem. If they're not driving, not hurting anyone else, and not taking something addictive, so not likely to turn to crime to fund an addiction (such as the shrooms you mentioned above- which are non-addictive), why is that a problem?
If someone wants to take shrooms to hallucinate or "get wasted" why is that a problem for you? From what I understand, no one has ever had a medical emergency due to taking them, and you can't get addicted to them because each subsequent dose you become more immune to. Why do you care if they take that particular drug?
If they did this for a day or two, it would be the fault of that one percent of the users. After a month or two it would be the fault of the Reddit moderators and owners for putting up with the one percent of the users. After many years, all the remaining users are now to blame for putting up with the Reddit moderators and owners who put up with the one percent of the users.
I've been a moderator of a few forums over the years (not Reddit). The obvious bad-eggs don't last long, they're easy to isolate and remove. A lot of the problems come from people who like to do the wind-up but they do it subtly. People who do just enough to provoke a conflict (sometimes just stoking the fire and sitting back). They never do one act that by itself is bad enough to get them the boot, but they do lots of winding-up, getting other people to overreact. They are the real problem of most forums, and they're hard to justify booting for a single act. They know what they're doing, and they do it slyly.
A few people ruin it for all of us.
I'm pretty sure this isn't just Reddit but anywhere. 1% cause the problems. You get a few ass-hats who see themselves as too good for the rest of the forum.
and yet from there he could have just taken the gondola in Palm Springs up to the top of Mt San Jacinto and gotten almost 10x higher than he did. Or hike to the top of Mt Whitney, and just look out to the east.
Or for about the same altitude, just go to Chicago, go to the top of Sears Tower. Tgen explain how on a clear day one can see over to Michigan, and reconcile why one cannot see it from Lake Shore Drive.
If he had done that he wouldn't have had his 15 minutes of fame or have a topic on Slashdot about him. He is getting "press" for flat earth by doing a stupid stunt like this. Not sure how many people he will convince (probably not many), but it's bringing attention to the fact that there are people who still think the earth is flat.
Cow Clicker? That sounds like a more accurate name for Tinder.
Then how is gun crime on the rise in Britain? Oh, wait, because criminals don't obey the law.
It is still extremely rare. Your average Joe the criminal can't get a gun in the UK.
I haven't yet met anyone who has survived life.
I'm living proof of immortality. I haven't died once.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
If it is opt-in, then only those who can afford being away from their job for 1-6 years (depending on how it is implemented) will opt-in. Biasing the pool. If it is not opt-in, those who cannot afford such a breach in their employment history will refuse to answer when selected.
One would be paid whilst serving the nation by the nation. The same as what happens today. Congressmen receive a salary once they're elected.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
But you either have to be able to afford the time not at your job, or not have a job to miss out on anyway. Either way, bad representation.
Not all...see above point.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
Until it comes to actually trying to get anything done. This will result in a perpetual deadlock, only interrupted when a skilled liar pushes an action.
There wouldn't necessarily be ANY parties in the sorti-elected government. They might separate themselves into groups once elected, or associate with parties. Compare it to today though where as many as 10%-50% of people prefer a third party to the main party (depending on who you believe)... What % of senators are third-party or in either house? Very few. You need the backing of one of two main parties to win an election- even though a significant portion of the country identify with neither party.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
HAHAHAHAHA! They'll be the ones offering catering services at the votes!
They can't fund the election of the representatives because the representatives don't have any election costs. All they could possibly do is bribe the representatives (which is already illegal) and would result in crippling fines on the lobbyists and expulsion/jail time for the reps and lobbyists offering the bribes.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon
What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon?
Predicting the distant future on a timeline is always a futile task. Certainly no time in the next decade will UBI make any sense. Let's reevaluate in 10 years and see if we're any closer. UBI only makes sense if there is a significant portion of the population unable to get decent work (and not just from a temporary recession). Once 25-40% of people can't work, and have no prospect of a job in the long term even if they retrain, then it's time to look at UBI and see if that might benefit the country as a whole. Right now, anyone can get a job, it might not be one they want or consider fitting their station in life, but anyone can make a living wage if they are willing to look a while and do what they consider demeaning work.
At this point in USA history it is really time to make a stand towards eliminating our party system. The easiest way to do that is get a few big players campaigning on independent tickets, or small third parties with the goal of gaining the 5-10 percent for national recognition and then start winning overall elections once the big parties have begun faltering.
Until that happens we will see the same mess repeating that has been for the past 200+ years of American History.
Yeah, it's sad that so many of the founding fathers had the right idea (that political parties were a bad idea), and now we have an institutionalized system that pretty much guarantees an ongoing 2 party system.
I've always liked the idea that one of the houses (probably representatives) be taken over by a Sortocracy (aka lottocracy) , like was in place in Athens and many other Greek city states. Basically, the idea is that representatives are chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens. Yeah, you get a few crack-pots in that way, but there are many benefits.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
5) Representatives do what they think is right, not what they think will get them elected (goes back to point 1).
It's the best way to get a truly representative body and not the polar ends of the spectrum that you end up with with party elected politics.
The entertainment of the 2020 Democrat primaries is going to be a lot more interesting than even the Republican 2016 primaries were.
Who will win? Old traditional Democrats or one of the new variety of young Leftists?
It's going to be a joke like the 2016 primaries were- and probably end up with some ridiculous extremist winning the nomination. UBI guy, Bernie Sanders, Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey? Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please? Why are all the names being put forwards either extremists or just plain bonkers.
What amuses me is that I haven't seen a single crypto coin ad.
All these companies joining forces to ban these ads- and I've never seen a single one anyway. It's like the government protecting me from dragons and having a dragon defense task force. There are no dragons to protect me from.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon and too radical, especially for the US. He's not going to get his party's nomination, and if he does, it's 4 more years of Trump.