What’s the fuzz about Antonielli anyways? He’s currently 6th in the F2 and has yet finish on the podium. That’s respectable, but doesn’t look like the next Verstappen. From the current grid, Leclerc, Russel, Hamilton, Norris, Piastri, Hülkenberg and possibly some others all had far more impressive rookie seasons in F2/GP2

In Pathfinder even on weaker creatures it’s important to call out the number because it may or may not crit

Yes that’s exactly right, because the alternative manages to somehow be even worse. All hail the two party system.

Estonia is both in the EU and NATO. Invading Estonia would pretty much trigger WW3

Surely it’s a strange decision to negotiate no gardening leave with RB if he was just going to retire anyway?

Maybe it was a just in case measure. So that he can say yes if the right opportunity arrives. Either way he is in a weird spot when it comes to designing a 2026 car. By the time he leaves Red Bull in 2025, the teams will have already laid down the fundamental design of their 2026 car, so he wouldn’t be able to design it from the ground up. And in the era of the cost cap, the cars of the following years will likely be evolutions of the 2026 car rather than Newey’s own design. We saw how long it took Mercedes to get away from their zero sidepod design and it’s probably still hurting them.

Don’t threaten them with a good time

That woman (Alice Weidel) is a rollercoaster of contradictions:

• She is one of the leaders of the far-right and nationalist party AfD, but lives in Switzerland herself.
• She lives with her girlfriend but refuses to call herself queer and voted against gay marriage
  • her girlfriend voted pro gay marriage in Switzerland
• Said girlfriend is a Swiss immigrant, originating from Sri Lanka, but Weidel promotes the typical anti-immigrant politics you’d expected from a right wing nut job

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with e2e encryption is not letting the good guys have e2e encryption! (or something like that)

The topic of freedom vs security is as old as statesmanship and philosophy, and most would agree that at least some freedoms must be given up to achieve an appropriate amount of safety. The problem however comes with human psychology: while by most metrics we are at record levels safety in these modern times, this doesn’t reflect into the human perception - it just becomes the new baseline. If this wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t even be a debate to give up the fundamental freedom of privacy just to provide whatever sliver of extra security this might possibly yield.

Many governments on the planet have less money than some big tech or oil companies. Obviously not those of large industrious nations, but most nations aren’t large and industrious.

There is nothing objectively wrong with your statement. However, we somehow always default to solving that issue by having some dragon hoard enough gold, and there is something objectively wrong with that.