The innocent man also says “I’m not guilty” and my point is that anyone saying they’re not guilty is not an indicator of whether they’re actually guilty or not. An innocent person is just as likely to say “I’m not guilty” as a guilty person would be. So really the only dumb comments here are yours. You believe a false premise which led you to a false conclusion and instead of accepting you’re wrong you’re doubling down on that stupidity.

You’re free to take your anecdotal evidence and believe stupid shit, but if you’re going to say it out loud you better be prepared for the public dunking you’re inevitably going to get, because while we can’t make you not believe it we can tell you it’s a stupid thing to believe.

So what does an innocent man say? “I’m guilty”?

No idea. It looked really weird on his onboard. Half like he knew Lawson was coming, because he positioned himself on a really weird part of the track, and half like he didn’t know Lawson was coming because he suddenly jolted his steering when Lawson got close. I guess technically he was off the racing line? And from Lawson point of view it’s hard to estimate if he was actually impeded or not because he had to break anyway. Probably came down to whoever had to make the decision as there’s enough gray area to go either way.

That said, had the roles been reversed Russell would’ve complained all the way to the stewards to penalize Lawson. I’m not against Russell not getting a penalty but i would’ve found out far more satisfying if he did get a penalty.

Max has said it’s not true and Norris backed it up saying Max doesn’t try to intimate.

But what George claims Max said does open up the question of George possibly lying. Or are you seriously going to believe “I would rather crash with you than give up my position” Verstappen said he wouldn’t race George and would let him pass? Completely voluntarily and without any benefit to him? Not only would that be completely uncharacteristic of him, it makes no sense for him to say that and if he somehow did actually say that, why would he be pissed about the penalty if he’s going to give the lead to Russell anyway? It makes no sense but George claims that’s what Max said.

Unless Max explicitly confirms what George claims Max said I’m going to stick with George is lying.

I agree and another part that made me question what Russell claims is this:

“I was going to not even race you tomorrow, I was going to let you by”.

Does that sound like Max Verstappen to you? It doesn’t sound like Max Verstappen to me. GP literally felt the need to tell Max to not race and risk the WDC because Max is a racer first and foremost and he’s not just going to give up a position. He’s going to race and he’s going to make you fight for your position and the only exception to that is if he has a really good reason to let you by (and even team orders isn’t a good enough reason). Considering he’s already won the WDC and there’s nothing to gain (or lose) for the WCC Max was there to race last week, why would he ever choose to not race George and just let him pass? He wouldn’t because that’s not who Max Verstappen is. If he can race he will race.

I would imagine a successful getaway includes leaving as little evidence as possible. The more you jerk around leaving false evidence the more likely you are to also leave real evidence.

My guess is that if Perez is going at the end of the season the second seat goes to Yuki. Unless they buy out someone else (which I seriously doubt) there really aren’t any other good options for RBR. Lawson isn’t better than Yuki, Colapinto is off the table, Bottas has ruled out RBR and the rest are unlikely to be better than Perez. It’s either Yuki or Perez.

There are so many games that I don’t even care about all the games available on Steam (that I’d be willing to play). We have so many games coming out that I’d have to play game for a living to play all the games I want to play, and even then I’m not 100% sure I’d be able to play everything I’d be open to play. I have multiple games that I’ve purchased and installed thinking “I’ll get to them soon enough” and they’re just taking drive space. I also have multiple games on my wishlist that are “waiting for a discount” but I’m probably never going to pick them up because actually they’re waiting for my backlog to clear and it will never clear.

Does it suck that Alan Wake is Epic exclusive. Sure. Does it really matter to me? Not really because I’m oversaturated with games I want to play. Missing one great game doesn’t matter when I already have a backlog of great games I won’t purchase because I have a backlog of great games I’ve purchased that I won’t play because I have a backlog of great games I really want to play.

How much RAM do you imagine internet cafe machines use? 8gb? 16gb? 32gb?

You can check yourself. I’m pretty sure the “cafe cards” amount to around 3-8% of the lowest end cards depending on whether we consider 1650 and 1060 as cafe cards. Obviously also excluding integrated cards because those I didn’t consider in the first place. On the other hand the current gen and last gen low end cards (xx50 and xx60) make up 25-28% of the market.

Also I don’t understand why you’d want to exclude cafe’s from the potential market? It’s not like internet cafes don’t upgrade their hardware. When they do upgrade they’re definitely going with the low end cards.

The only reason I’m thinking they’re going with Yuki is because who else is there? Lawson and Colapinto look like they’re going to bomb out like Gasly did. Bottas to my knowledge has said RBR doesn’t want him. I love Ricciardo but he seemed as washed as Perez. Even if they bring Hadjar up to F1 there’s no way he goes straight into RBR. Maybe Albon is up for grabs, but would he really want to drive the RBR again knowing he won’t be confident in that car?

Yuki is far from the ideal pick, especially because he doesn’t look like he’s ready to be the number 2 driver, but the options are so limited that if they don’t pick Yuki they might as well continue with Perez.

I’m guessing RBR is going to throw the constructors in the bin again because you might as well focus on getting a good start in 2026 instead of being weighed down by a poor driver selection right now. They really don’t have good options for 2025 at the moment (unless they buy someone else out, which I doubt). In that light they might give Tsunoda a one year contract because he’ll probably score more points than Perez and RBR get to see if he’s willing to play ball with the team. If not they’ll just pick someone else for 2026.

Honestly, I hope AMD-s shift to focus on lower end cards is successful. It should be considering the xx60 series (and performance equivalent) cards make up like 50% of the entire consumer GPU hardware? At least I think it was around 50 the last time I tried to sum up all the percentages of the Steam hardware survey. There’s definitely a huge market they can tap if they can bang-per-buck outprice Nvidia (and I guess also Intel). Maybe even bring down the ridiculous pricing of modern GPU-s.

She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can’t happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it’s causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it’s in her self-interest because she’s paid into it).

It doesn’t matter to me which way you’re going to try to twist this, you’re going to end up defending her or her ideology because you’ve already done both of those things. I’m not going to continue arguing over those points because I’ve already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.

You don’t have to try so hard anymore, you’ve already defended her ideology. We’re done here, I’ve already tagged you as “defends Ayn Rand” so in the future I’d know who I’m talking to.

By deliberately ignoring the meaning given by the author of the term and instead making up your own definition that suits your argument? Such a crusader for correct meanings.

I can’t use her own words to show how she’s a hypocrite? My bad, I thought we were having a honest discussion. Go enjoy your successful defense of Ayn Rand and her ideology because I’m fucking done with you.

I didn’t mean Rand herself. I meant the other guy was taking too broad strokes when it comes to participation. If a socialist becomes a capital owner and someone says calls them out for not being a socialist you can’t be “well they have to participate in the capitalist system so the criticism is moot”. They have to participate only to the extent of what is effectively forced upon them, but it doesn’t mean they have to go and start exploiting others. Same with Rand. Yeah, she had to participate in the taxation part of the process. She didn’t have to participate in the getting benefits part but she still chose to participate.

And the entire argument here is over whether or not she’s a hypocrite for not practicing what she preached. I think in that sense we’re in agreement that she’s a hypocrite because even if she herself has no standard she still preached about a certain standard. I honestly don’t care if it’s her lack of standards or too high standards of whatever ideology is present in her works, I simply see a disconnect between what she’s said and what she’s done and to me that’s hypocrisy. The other person however is trying to hold her to her own standard by trying to argue her actions are consistent with the ideology she presented.

I’ll ask again, are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest?

Yes. That is exactly what Ayn Rand is saying.

The system doesn’t go away if you don’t take it and you’ve already paid into it.

And? Paying into it shouldn’t change your ideological stance. Or is a vegan allowed to eat meat if they pay to eat at an all you can eat restaurant that serves meat? After all they’ve already paid for the meat.

She is still going to have pay into the system if she lives. Not her decision for it to exist or pay into it.

Yes, she is being forced to participate in the system the same way socialists are forced to participate in a capitalist system. Nobody is calling her a hypocrite for paying taxes.

The decision is to take the money or don’t. Which is the decision that is self interested?

According to Rand. A decision made with rational self-interest is a decision that can’t sacrifice others and any redistribution of income is a distribution of sacrifice. That means any action in the redistribution process is not compatible with rational self-interest, because the process itself is sacrificing others. She gets a free pass on paying taxes because that participation is forced upon her. She doesn’t get a free pass on taking out social security because now she chose to participate in a process that is sacrificing others. Rational self-interest doesn’t justify her decision because she is choosing to sacrifice others.