I'm not sure about your argument.
Hamilton was judged predominantly to blame at Silverstone, and got a 10 sec penalty in the race.
Verstappen was judged predominantly to blame here, couldn't get a penalty in the race because he crashed out, so gets a grid penalty in the next race.

It's debatable which is worst out of a 10s in-race penalty or a 3-place grid penalty. Probably depends on the circuit. But we can't say one got a penalty and the other not at all - this is clearly untrue. And they can't have the same penalty, when the first one is an in-race penalty, and the second one happens when the driver is no longer in the race.



I think the cause of all this is Max is famous for never backing out of a manoeuvre, whereas Lewis in the past has backed out. But at Silverstone Lewis decided two could play that game, and he wasn't going to give any ground either. So we now have two drivers who, against each other, will not pull out of the move under any circumstances. Result so far: two crashes. And after this latest crash, the situation certainly will not change. We can expect dramatic clashes every time they come head-to-head now, with neither willing to cede position.

I really don't understand this argument. Maybe it differs by country, but here the vaccines are free to everyone, and the main supplier is AZ, who are producing the vaccines at cost, with no profit. Healthcare is provided for free, with no need for any private insurance. Where does the 'money swindling' come from?

As for the government motivation to create a 'hoax' virus and force everyone to stay at home, etc... this doesn't make any sense at all. The lockdowns here were implemented way too late and lifted too early, because the government really wanted to keep everything open. Their initial strategy was to keep everything open and achieve herd immunity by letting everyone catch the virus. When they realised this would result in a high death count that would hurt them at the next election, they backtracked and went for lockdowns instead, waiting for the arrival of a vaccine to achieve herd immunity a different way. Closing businesses and forcing people to stay at home has saved lives, but hurt the economy. Our government is interested primarily in the economy; they were and remain very reluctant to have lockdowns and social distancing etc. The rapid vaccine rollout was seen as key to getting back to 'business as normal'. Vaccine deployment is not a goal in itself, it's a route to an end state where the economy is back to 100% and that precious money starts flowing again. A pro-business government has no motivation to hurt business.

Yes, I was quite surprised by this one. PSG should beat just about every team in the world, and only really be challenged by a very few, the likes of Man City, etc.

However I have to say that the Man United result is a bit of a surprise, but not a huge surprise. It was inevitable that Ronaldo would score, he always does... but Man United have weaknesses, and the signing of Ronaldo does nothing to address them. He's a great goalscorer, but he doesn't contribute much outside that... his general lack of involvement is well known, and will likely be detrimental to Man United as a team. I understand the signing from an emotional standpoint, but logically it makes little sense. I don't think he makes them a better team.

As you're the only one who can see it, please could you advise when it is expected to break the surface and finally emerge? If it's been rising all this time, then it's moving very slowly.
Perhaps there is some immense weight attached to it, which is slowing it down? It does appear to be clinging desperately to innumerable frivolous and demented lawsuits... perhaps if it let go of all this waterlogged paperwork, it might feel less encumbered, and be able to finally surface so that we can all see it for what it is...

If we are asking whether he can overtake Djokovic by the end of the year, then there's no need to look at current ranking points, and who has what from last year to drop.

Instead we only need to look at the race points, from the season so far. Medvedev has a 2,000 point deficit, or thereabouts. It's a big ask to overcome that by the end of the season. Even if he won everything, it would need Djokovic to score very very low points.

Let's correct some of the junk.
It is irresponsible to peddle unsubstantiated nonsense that contradicts the publicly-available evidence from vast and diverse datasets.

Each of your five 'vaccine does not' statements is incorrect* and I have provided the data to prove this many times.
You are either unwilling or unable to back up your assertions with evidence... because they have been proven to be untrue.

I suspect you mean that the vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity, doesn't reduce your chance of dying from CV19 to 0, etc... Well, of course not. No-one ever said that the vaccine conferred immortality or other super-powers.

In effect, you are saying: the vaccine isn't perfect, it's merely very very good... therefore we shouldn't take it.

Plumbing new depths of absurdity.



* Including the fourth statement, where you misspell 'virus', and the fifth where you give up even trying to type it.

I don't think he's likely to overtake Djokovic in ranking points. If we look at the race points, he's still 2k behind. We have to remember that Medvedev has 1,500 points from last year's ATP finals to defend.
But a lot will depend on Djokovic's motivation. I can't see that he has anything left to achieve outside the slams. How does he maintain his motivation in lesser tournaments?

Because anyone who catches it can spread it to others, even with only mild symptoms, even if entirely asymptomatic.
Having the vaccine doesn't make you immortal, it doesn't make you immune from all harm, no-one ever said it did... but it protects you very well.

The purpose of my ridiculous point was solely to highlight the absurdity of your argument. But we can return to it, if you wish. I was attempting to distill all of the below into a few sentences, but let's have it in long form:




Okay, so "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics of the country." Well, of course. Is there a country where this isn't true? What is your point?

I mean, we can take another excerpt from your link:


So, yay for the communists! ... right? Which kind of undermines your point.

My point is that after the section I quoted, comes this sentence: "But racism persists."
My point is that you often insist on an absolute either/or, and resolutely refuse to consider shades of grey, whether on Venezuela, Cuba, or on the concept that is entirely shades of grey, that is entirely compromise: capitalist democracy.

Racism in Cuba is of course a complex issue, a real world situation with millions of people and many years of history. The elimination of racism, sexism etc., is an ongoing struggle, everywhere. A perfect solution will not be found, but every step in the right direction is to be welcomed.

Your article begins with:


The BLM comments are clumsy and poorly-timed, yes. But the US embargo has of course had a profoundly detrimental effect on Cuba. This is undeniable, surely? But I will not attempt to claim it is the only problem. The government is hugely at fault, too, as I believe I mentioned some time ago in my criticism of the Cuban regime, and its attempts to stifle press freedom. It's not either/or. It's both. The Cuban government over the years has done some good things, and many bad things. It should be perfectly possible to support the good things, without this being taken as tacit support for the bad things, without this being forced through outrageous contortions into your mangled argument that BLM=bad.



This was where you started. The "alleged" structural racism comment I will let slide but again, to anyone with even a slight interest in data (which, on this specific topic, I've posted several times before), it's reminiscent of a certain freedom-lovin' fact-hatin' frequent flyer on the P&S board.
Your argument is that BLM isn't interested (or not interested primarily) in reducing structural, endemic racism in the US because... what? They're secretly (or, in your view, overtly) champions of repression?



I am becoming irritated, and these posts are both overly lengthy, and veering away from the focus on bitcoin. I'll try not to post in this thread again; I'm sure we will pick up these topics again later on, somewhere else, and may perhaps even, eventually, reach some common ground.

Back to bitcoin...

I'm glad there's someone else with a brain in this endless nonsense thread. Thanks.
Yes, of course it works, as we all* knew full well. But you can't use facts and evidence to convince these people; their positions are entirely emotional; they are anti-vax zealots, anti-vax with a slavering, religious fervour, and nothing will shake them from their irrational beliefs.


As I say, you won't be convinced by something as outrageous as evidence, but I shall keep trying. Perhaps you might be interested in this paper, published today, by the Office of National Statistics?

Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021



* All of us who are capable of understanding basic mathematics.

HUGE: Random person alleges an unsubstantiated nothing. Kraken shakes his head sadly. Nothing to feed on here. Kraken sinks below the waves once more.

Yes, I think that. I said a few pages back that the one person in the tournament who can beat Djokovic is Djokovic himself, and that is what happened. A great performance from Medvedev certainly, but Djokovic was well below his usual standard. If Medvedev had faced a Djokovic who was playing at 100% or even maybe 85% of his ability, then the outcome would have been different.

I'm sure he beat himself, and there are quite striking parallels here with Serena Williams' ongoing failure to win that elusive final grand slam. Her task is perhaps somewhat easier because a) it's a single slam, she doesn't have to win all 4 in the same year, and b) she doesn't have to beat Nadal on clay to do it!

The decision is already in, Verstappen takes the penalty, none for Hamilton (see my post above). As with Silverstone, the word is "predominantly". As with Silverstone, the important thing is that both drivers are physically okay. But the battle will continue through the remainder of the season. I wonder if it happens again the stewards will take more drastic action?


And I don't think this next bit is acceptable at all... Verstappen on the radio, "That's what you get when you don't leave the space", his car literally on top of someone else's while he's radioing in, and the message is not "Is he okay?" or "Is he alive?"... it's basically "F*** you".

The stewards' decisions is that Verstappen is predominantly to blame. He takes a 3 place grid penalty at the next race (plus 2 points on his licence).
I'm sure he didn't mean to plant his car on top of Hamilton's, but this sort of thing in football is called a professional foul - it did appear that he deliberately took Hamilton out, so as not to lose points.

But I think both drivers need to cool down before one of them gets hurt. At Silverstone Hamilton was found predominantly to blame. The word "predominantly" occurs both times, and is key here. Neither driver wants to give an inch.



I don't think that's appropriate. If we didn't have the halo, a driver would be dead.

I don't really think it was that one-sided. Leylah was very competitive, and a threat throughout. Raducanu played better, yes, but even at 6-4 5-3, Leylah was still in it with a break point. If she'd won that point, we'd have been back on serve and potentially heading for a third set. The quality throughout from both players was just phenomenal, as if they'd been playing these sorts of matches for years.



It's fantastic, yes. Us Brits have been starved of top level tennis players, we've only really had Andy Murray, and it's so nice to see another winning a major. And it's great that she has mixed ethnicity, Romanian and Chinese parents. And similar for Leylah, who is another top talent, Filipino and Ecuadorean parents, and representing Canada. Seeing stars emerge with this sort of background helps to reduce racism and xenophobia.

I do wonder how players at this level manage to sustain their motivation, when they've already won everything so many times already. Obviously this current target for Djokovic is a huge one, but after that, what is left? Only the Olympics, and that is years away. Is it possible that if he wins this match, then he will start to drop away from the top of the game?

And how often does this happen? All the time? Or hardly ever, and isolated instances are widely publicised by racists? You can't imply it's a general principle unless you can back this up.


Agreed. But this shouldn't be seen as a reason to stop improving, or to deny that problems exist which need to be addressed.


There's no point in responding to this with anything other than an emoji. 


I got double-charged for an item in the supermarket the other day. No word from BLM on that. So they're in favour of shops double-charging people, right? 


The pompous fools who vote right-wing because they think (or want people to think) they've "made it" and are now part of the elite are only a subset of right-wing voters. There are of course other reasons people vote for right-wing parties. Some are racist, yes, and get scared and enraged when the billionaires who run tabloid newspapers blame immigrants for all their woes.


No-one is perfect. I give some of my money to charities. Could I give more, without significantly impacting my way of life? Certainly, yes. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite... but there are degrees of hypocrisy.


I would argue that you're talking about a small subset of a very large group. If someone in a red t-shirt attacks me, should I hate everyone in red t-shirts?


Well, then show some numbers.


Another point on which we will never agree, I think. For me the evidence is crystal clear, and is demonstrated every day.


Here in the UK we've not had a left-wing leader since the 1970s, probably since 1976. And yet, nearly 50 years later, it's still the immigrants who seem to be to blame for everything. Isn't that strange?

There was always a lot of expectation that she would have a good career, to the level where she would get seeded for the big tournaments, and maybe, potentially, even challenge for one... but that was supposed to be years down the line, after patiently building her game and her experience so that she could go from being a great junior to a fully seasoned professional. It wasn't supposed to happen now, in only her second proper tournament!

Go to the US Open website, and look at her history. Prior to this tournament, she has played 6 WTA level matches in her career. She's not just won the US Open in straight sets, but she's played more matches at the US Open this year than in the entire rest of her career so far!

It was a great match from both of them, I think they should both be near the top of the game for years to come. Astonishing.

This is probably a bad idea. You've been waiting all these long months for a Kraken to appear, and the instant your precious beast emerges*, you want to direct it into something that has spinning blades?




*No, that's not a euphemism. Yes, it does conjure some unfortunate images.

I don't think it will disadvantage him, either. Even if he lost the first two sets, I'd still expect Djokovic to win. He needs a decent challenger, but there aren't any now that Federer and Nadal are gone.