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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that's really the issue with Ubisoft, they just don't make "must play" games anymore. Seriously, what's the last universally liked Ubisoft game that everyone wanted to play? Far Cry 3. Close second is probably AC: Black flag but that was already suffering from AC fatigue and its critical acclaim has come retroactively. Those games are over a decade old. Ubisoft hasn't released anything in the last decade where the mainstream gaming goes "We must play that". Ubisoft simply doesn't make exciting games anymore. They make games that are for everyone which also means they're for no-one.
Selling literal shit at a restaurant also isn't unfeasible if the customer doesn't care about eating shit. But nobody is going to eat shit and nobody (normal) is going to pay $10+ a month to get mostly gimmick features. At a glance there's barely anything useful in the API.
The older stalker games are worth it only if you want the story. If you want to experience the gameplay you can download stalker Anomaly for free. Anomaly is a standalone mod that combines the 3 stalker games into one (minus the story) and adds cut content and has been "modernized" over time. It's a much better experience than the original games and the community considers it THE way to play Stalker, and ontop of being a mod it also has a healthy modding community.
I don't remember how beginner friendly it might be (probably not very because the mod gives you a lot of customization options before you even start the game) but I'm sure there are some beginner guides on YouTube. And for the price of free the only question is how much time you're willing to invest to play Stalker. And if you think the OG games will be much easier, not really. No matter what stalker game you start with you're bound to meet the relatively steep learning curve.
I think it might have more to do with the fact that our perception of morality changes with societal norms. People in the 19th century probably looked at Roman gay sex as something bad and vulgar because gays were bad. Now we view Roman gay sex in a positive light.
Were the 19th century people bad people because they viewed homosexuality as something bad? Or do we consider them bad just because we no longer see homosexuality as something bad? What if 200 years from now homosexuality is considered bad again, do the 19th century people become good?
Maybe we shouldn't apply our current moral values to people who lived at a different time with different moral values?
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.