Max set the precedent that you can do such a divebomb not that you couldn’t retake off track. You’re arguing to make the move even stronger by disallowing retaking off track.

But if Max wanted to overtake because he was quicker out of the corner? Where would he go?

That was to point out that he didn’t leave room for Verstappen. If Norris is already almost off the track, where is Verstappen supposed to go? Magically teleport through Norris?

On paper I completely agree, Max should’ve given the position back. But in reality I think we both know why he didn’t and why I think it was fair game. You even allude to the reason.

The stewards could have given Lando a penalty for that.

Just as they could have punished Lando for it they also could have punished Verstappen for not letting Lando pass. The stewards are wildly inconsistent and if I was a racer I wouldn’t put my GP win in the hands of the stewards. Unless I’m clearly in the wrong the most logical course of action is to do what’s best for me at that moment and then argue with the stewards later. Another example of stewards being inconsistent is the fact that Verstappen didn’t get punished for taking the position back. He absolutely should’ve gotten punished for it, but he didn’t. The stewards play loose with rules so drivers must also play loose with the rules if they want to win.

Imagine if Verstappen had given that position to Norris and then stewards had done nothing to punish Norris. People would have called Verstappen a sucker for giving up the position because why would you willingly give up your position in such a gray area? Verstappen is driving to win and that means he’s not going to give up a position just so he could be “in the right”. Being in the right doesn’t mean you get to win. The winners mindset is that if you can be in the right and win then that’s great, but if can’t achieve that you’d much rather be in the wrong and win than be in the right and not win. That doesn’t apply only to Verstappen, Norris would also be just as fine being in the wrong and winning. Same with a lot of other drivers.

I don’t think it’s that straight forward. Norris dove so deep he almost went off track himself. He didn’t leave Verstappen space so Verstappen had to go off track. Implying Norris had the right for the position sets a dangerous precedent where you can simply divebomb deep into the corner, cut off the entire corner and the person you want to pass has to give the position to you.

I imagine almost everyone working there are there for the money. You’d need to be in the sport with blinders on to not see that Stroll is not championship material. He’s decent and I think that’s a generous estimate of his skill.

Maybe in some very broad strokes, but in very broad strokes legs and cars are also the same because they move you from point A to point B.

So you’re mixing up two different meaning of AI to say that AI doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere? When people are talking about bats, the flying mammals, do you also interject with “bats are use to hit a ball” to make some point? No, because deliberately mixing up homonyms is stupid.

It’s pretty clear what kind of AI people are talking about here. Nobody was discussing game AI.

Genuinely not sure if joking or actually dumb.

Because it’s more of a buzzword than a goal. Carbon neutral, in theory, means a company reduces their carbon output where they can and then reimburse the rest of the carbon they can’t reduce. In practice it means a company can literally do nothing to reduce their emissions, pay someone else to offset the carbon they refuse to reduce and then claim “we’re carbon neutral” while polluting with the same rate as they were before. Carbon neutral simply does not go far enough.

You missed to point. Compare instances to communities.

Instances are not isolated. It doesn’t matter much which instance you join because as long as your instance is federated with other instances you can still participate in the communities you want to participate in. If you don’t like your instances, you can join a different instance and as long as that other instance is federated the same way you can get get the exact same experience on a different instance. That means instances are decentralized.

Communities are isolated. It matters which community you join because each post and comment is contained within that community. If you join a small community and there’s a bigger community elsewhere you won’t be able to participate in the bigger community. If you dislike a community and join a different community you can’t get the exact same experience because you can’t interact with the same posts. All of that means communities are centralized.

The reason we have popular communities in the first place is because communities are centralized. Centralized communities also work against the decentralization as your example also pointed out, because instances can leverage their communities.

This is also what I alluded to my steering wheels analogy. We don’t have tools to decentralize communities. We have a steering wheel for each community instead of one wheel for all communities that are essentially the same.

I disagree. The decentralization is thought through at an instance level, not community level. If it was thought through at a community level we’d have tools to aggregate different communities. The current solution is the equivalent of having multiple steering wheels on a car, nobody thought how you’d actually steer the car so you were given the option to steer each wheel separately. It might make sense on a superficial level but if you thought about how users actually use the thing you’d know it’s not the best way to do things.

I like to imagine the only reason he wasn’t dropped right away is because there’s nobody else willing to drive that shitbox of a car. He’s probably out the next year.

It has always been profitable and we’ve already seen the enshittification with the plethora of completely useless launchers and company specific accounts. We’ve more or less grown accustomed to the enshittification that has happened in the last decade.

So I’m not really scared because the real gems of PC gaming aren’t from big public companies, they’re from small indie teams. All that enshittification just pushes me more and more towards indie games. I occasionally tip my toes into the mainstream games whenever I see something I want to play, but mostly I play games made by small studios who want to make games for others to play rather than make games to make money.

If it’s not that then sorry for giving your insane rambling a modicum of rational context.

What’s your point? Socialism doesn’t mean be you have to be poor, socialism is about getting the full value of your work. If your work is so valuable it makes you a multi-millionaire then from a socialist perspective that’s completely fine. Your point makes sense only if you have no fucking clue what socialism is.

There is a digital console for sale, but I have no idea how that would work if you can’t make a PSN account. I imagine officially they don’t sell digital.

But even if we assume they shouldn’t sell digital it doesn’t explain not changing the listing for all games. The supposed “oh shit” moment was week / two weeks ago. Business critical issues get fixed immediately which means all games should’ve changed by now.

I can verify that retailers are selling the console and games, including forbidden west and ghost of Tsushima.

Except they’ve been selling in some of those countries for years? GoW, days gone, returnal, horizon series and Spiderman series are all available and some have been for years. It’s not about selling games in those countries, it’s about wanting to force PSN on the players. Can’t force PSN to people in countries where it’s not available so they’re not going to sell there.

It is. Magnussen deserved a penalty and 10 second is the minimum penalty that’s given out this season. It’s only harsh of you’re not used to the new overall harsher penalties.