I don't think that had much if any effect. Rosberg won in 2016 partly through Hamilton's bad luck, and partly through Hamilton's complacency in thinking he would always beat Rosberg. Whilst the reliability problems suffered by Hamilton did cost him the championship (he lost by 5 points), Hamilton did also (metaphorically) take his foot off the gas a little (as well as being uncharacteristically weak on races starts) and Rosberg took full advantage. The final few races of the 2016 season are where I think we see the emergence of the Hamilton we see now, the relentless ultra-consistent winning machine, and it was Rosberg who forced him to raise his game to this new level. I think at the end of the season Rosberg knew he'd been lucky as well as right on the edge for the whole season, and decided to retire at the top rather than face the prospect of continuing to race and never beating Hamilton to the championship again.

I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who not only hold opinions that are in absolute contradiction to established facts, but also spread this misinformation and keep it in circulation. Which then, using CV19 as an example, leads to the mask-shunning freedom-warriors who help to keep R>1.

I really struggle to understand what F1 drivers are like as people. Obviously they're quite fearless, but after going through that crash the idea that he immediately just wants to race again is difficult for me to process. It's hugely impressive that he's able to do that.

Man, that app is so snitch!

I think the word would just get redefined as slang for cool. This might be direct manipulation through some subtle marketing, or it might happen organically once everyone started calling these evil things 'snitch'.

Bad, wicked, sick.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that language can be and is used to modify perspectives and opinions. Even such ludicrous neologisms as 'alternative facts' and 'fake news' have power. I'm not making yet another anti-Trump comment here, but it's fascinating/disturbing how effective he has been at manipulating the lexicon. His success has spawned countless imitators. As a recent example, the UK government is one of the first in the world to approve the new Covid-19 vaccine. Whilst other countries conduct thorough studies on safety and efficacy, the UK simply says 'we'll take it right now!'. But this irresponsibility is immediately cast as a success story. Here's MP Gavin Williamson yesterday, worshipping at the altar of Trumpism as he explains why the UK is first:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/03/gavin-williamson-britains-a-much-better-country-than-all-of-them

The establishment is already so snitch at using language to their advantage, that I don't think it can be weaponised against them in the defence of privacy.

I never said he was a despot! I just implied it.

And he was aiming for a nuclear holocaust to cement his legacy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html

I'm so grateful we have experts! Without these people, we'd never have guessed that bombing a nation that has a nuclear capability might have consequences!
And if Trump listened to experts more often he might not have accidentally made 23,035 false or misleading claims in 1,331 days as POTUS*.



*last updated Sept. 11, 2020

He knows something about markets that many people don't. Buy the rumour, sell the news.




He runs a biopharmaceutical company. So, yes.

I voted 5, because this is what we are taught to believe and expected to believe. 2+2=5 is the litany of the modern world.

In practice it's difficult to get any two things in alignment, so let's consider them to be vectors. In which case any answer between 0 and 4 is correct (if not socially acceptable), and pointed in whatever direction.

I no longer think there's much danger of that.
There is another thread that discusses the potential dangers of Trump's remaining time in office. He did try to initiate a nuclear holocaust, but was (thankfully) shot down (unfortunately only metaphorically) by his advisors.


For me, this marks a turning point. The party is starting to challenge him, and block some of his most outrageous moves. Trumpism will likely remain, but the man himself will go. He's even said he will leave the White House if the Electoral College confirm Biden. I still think there's zero chance of Trump actually admitting he lost the election, but it seems there's now a decent chance that he will go peacefully.

The most interesting thing for me is how Russell shapes up against Bottas. Remember Bottas was widely thought to be an excellent driver until he joined Mercedes and found himself measured against the relentless winning-machine that is Lewis Hamilton. It's a completely different sort of pressure to be driving in the best car and being expected to win. It will be fascinating to see how Russell handles it.

Yes, also good to have the Schumacher name back next season. Let's hope he is as exciting to watch as his dad was. And we also have Alonso coming back, too:)

You are of course correct. I was wrong, my focus too narrow.

How might we use family and friendship bonds to encourage people to value and retain their privacy? Is there a way to associate privacy with reward in this context? Or is the approach to reinforce the negative consequences to family and friends of surrendering our privacy? If so, how? Many people currently give away through social media not only their own privacy, but also that of loved ones. Is this an angle of attack? So instead of saying "don't share your personal data" to which people think "it's my data, I don't mind"... we say "don't share the personal data of your loved ones" and emphasise that to do so might cause emotional or financial damage to these people that you care about. The result then being that you value their right to privacy, and so are more likely in turn to value your own.

Or is there something else, other than family/friends, that everyone (or almost everyone) values more than they value $$$?

Jet Cash, I'm interested in your thoughts on this post from earlier in the thread.
As far as I can see, the arguments you are making against the Covid-19 vaccine are the same as those that were made in the 19th Century about the Smallpox vaccine... but the Smallpox vaccine was a good thing, right?

The manifestation of value in a free capitalist market is money, and only money. To make privacy valuable, we have to monetise it. Instead of an apparently valueless commodity that people are happy to give away for free, we make their privacy worth $$$. But there is only one result:

In fact, worse than resolving nothing, it legitimises the surveillance capitalism and the loss of privacy. Privacy is no longer being stolen; it is being purchased at the market rate.

But ideas have no intrinsic value in a capitalist market. Their value lies only in their potential to create money.


I still can't see any route to making people value and want to retain their privacy other than by a deliberate modification of the definition of value, such that it is separated from money, such that privacy itself becomes something that is desirable, rather than being something that is considered primarily in terms of its monetary equivalent.
I don't believe that any grassroots approach can be successful. Anything that is a threat to the system is suppressed efficiently and with utter ruthlessness. So in practice, as I see it, the most likely (rather, least unlikely of all the unlikely options) is that someone different gets elected. Coming back to the US (sorry, but it is a perfect example)... Biden is the system, Trump is the system on steroids (so, in my view, worse), and then Sanders is the alternative with a different definition of value.

Note to self:  Merit this now....

In the UK, at risk groups will get the vaccine first. I would imagine, given the worldwide demand hugely outstripping supply, that the situation will be similar in other countries. So unless you're in an 'at risk' category (or one of certain types of health professional), the likelihood is that by the time you get your chance to take the vaccine, it will have already been given to a sizeable proportion of the older population, so any side-effects will be well-known (although these should already be documented as a part of the trials and the approval process).

By a quirk of fate, Jet Cash will be in one of the earlier groups to be offered the vaccine here in the UK.

I've had this discussion with you before, regarding the Polio vaccine.
It is proven that vaccines save lives.


The 'modern' argument implies that you're accepting that vaccines used in the past were effective... you're just against taking the one that's being discussed right now. It's not a convincing argument. Next year it might be 'Yes, the Covid-19 vaccine worked, but the Avian-Flu-20 vaccine is a scam!'.
The anti-vax argument is not modern. It has been around for a long time, and disproven over and over again.
Here's the start of an anti-vax campaign pamphlet from 1885... was the Smallpox vaccine effective?


https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t7wm29713&view=1up&seq=5

Yes. In a way it's fortunate that he contracted it after securing the championship. If he'd caught it earlier in the season he might have missed 3 races, and we'd end up with perhaps Bottas as an undeserved champion - as I'm sure he would have acknowledged. I mentioned this earlier in the season. Fine if Stroll or someone misses a race, but totally different if it's a championship contender.

My bold, because this is an important consideration.
Altcoins are often heavily dependent on bitcoin price movement, which can render alt support/resistance levels irrelevant.
Say ETH is $450 and has strong 'resistance' at $500. Bitcoin suddenly surges 50%. ETH 'resistance' evaporates.

The biggest expectation is that the young people will solve the climate crisis. Of course this is totally unfair, but it's the situation that will be bequeathed. It's a result of the chronic short-termism in modern politics. If the issue isn't having a catastrophic effect right now, then kick the can down the road and let the next generation deal with it. This isn't a left/right thing, all governments are the same. This sort of behaviour manifests all the time, not least in the responses to Covid...


https://xkcd.com/2278/

I hope the next generation can solve the climate crisis, but that doesn't mean we should stop putting pressure on the current generation to sort out the mess they and their predecessors have created. If people only act when it's too late, then it's too late.

Mine too. I like games that rely more on skill than brute luck. Poker is fairly simple to learn, but phenomenally difficult to master. I love the combination of skill, maths and psychology. The hardest thing for me is trying to ensure that my play is unpredictable for my opponents. For example, sometimes if I have an excellent hand I will remain very hesitant and low-stakes on betting, and only make a huge bid later on, when some random low value card is revealed.

I can't see a problem. The determination of what constitutes a result should be set out clearly beforehand. If this is unclear, then it's the casino at fault.
If the casino is clear but the gamblers haven't read the definitions, then it's the gamblers' fault.

We don't have to look any further than this forum for an example of how it should be done: clear, concise, agreed and understood in advance.