bhmnscmm @ bhmnscmm @lemmy.world

Posts

111

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

Did you finish reading the article? Here's a quote from it:

“People have a narrative that physician earnings is one of the main drivers of high health-care costs in the U.S.,” Polyakova told us. “It is kind of hard to support this narrative if ultimately physicians earn less than 10 percent of national health-care expenditures.”

There is certainly too much money in American heathcare, but doctors are a pretty small part of the problem.

What is generally considered roasted vegetables aren't cooked in liquid. There's nothing wrong with cooking vegetables in liquid, but most people wouldn't call them roasted. Even if the vegetables are in a pot roast.

That's really just meats: braising essentially. Roasted vegetables aren't cooked in juices, for example.

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.

Look up the Art Bell Tape Vault and the Art Bell Archives on Spotify.

I sure hope so! I really hope Andretti is allowed in F1.

Although, even if they're approved as an 11th team there's no way they'd be ready to compete next year.

I know it's unrealistic, but imagine if Palou went to Alpine.

This time last year was a difficult period for Alpine, who were at the centre of the driver market as they lost Fernando Alonso to Aston Martin and their highly-rated reserve Oscar Piastri to McLaren.

Fast forward to now and it’s an equally difficult time in terms of a massive senior management shake-up – but they can take comfort in having stability regarding drivers with Esteban Ocon and Pierre Gasly signed up for next year. So with that line-up settled, where does the excitement lie on this year’s driver merry go-round? F1 Correspondent Lawrence Barretto has had a dig around to try to sharpen the current picture… Hamilton and Mercedes on course to continue into 2024

The best seat still technically available for 2024 sits at Mercedes alongside George Russell – but in reality it’s a matter of when, rather than if, Lewis Hamilton finally puts pen to paper to keep it in his possession and extend his stay at the Silver Arrows.

Neither Mercedes boss Toto Wolff nor Hamilton appear stressed by the amount of time it is taking to get a new deal over the line. They’ve both said that the key terms – including money and length of the arrangement – have been agreed.

It’s just, as Wolff puts it, “trivial things that need to be cleaned up” in the contract before it all gets signed off.

Hamilton has left it late to sign a new deal in the past. It wasn’t until the eve of pre-season in 2021 that he inked a one-year extension to race in that upcoming campaign. Just six months later, he penned a new two-year deal, taking him up to the end of 2023.

The 38-year-old reckons he can race on for at least another five years, the Briton believing he still has what it takes to win a record eighth world championship.

And having spent his whole career with the Mercedes family, from backing in karting to making his F1 debut with the Mercedes-powered McLaren team to spending the last decade with the works outfit, it’s more than likely he’ll continue with the Silver Arrows for the foreseeable.

Williams backing Sargeant to come good

With Red Bull, Aston Martin, Ferrari, McLaren and Alpine having sorted their line-ups for next year and Mercedes all but done, Williams represents the next best seat based on current championship position.

The British team, who sit seventh in the standings, already have highly-rated Alex Albon tied up for 2024. On the other side of the garage, rookie Logan Sargeant has had a solid but unspectacular start to life in Formula 1, and knows he needs to up his game to stick around for another season.

Williams have thrown their collective arm around the American’s shoulders and tried to keep the pressure off him in a bid to help him find a rhythm. They are backing him to succeed and earn a second campaign in blue – but he needs to not only find consistency but also close the gap to Albon, particularly in qualifying, and get himself on the scoreboard.

If he doesn’t, his seat is under threat. Mick Schumacher would be an obvious contender, having briefly had talks with the team last year and having kept his hand in through his Mercedes reserve role, where he has earned public praise for his efforts from Hamilton and Russell.

Haas expected to retain their line-up for 2024

Owner Gene Haas was in town in Hungary and Belgium – and that provided the ideal opportunity for him to sit down with Team Principal Guenther Steiner and Nico Hulkenberg to thrash out a new deal for the German.

Hulkenberg has excelled on his return to Formula 1 with the American squad, delivering impressive speed and consistency on a Saturday and scoring nine of their 11 points this season. Sources say a deal to continue the partnership is close.

Kevin Magnussen is a popular figure within the Haas operation and is responsible for the team’s only pole position to date – achieved last year in Brazil. He’s been outshone by Hulkenberg so far this year, but it is believed Gene Haas and Steiner have seen enough to want to extend his stay into 2024. Talks are on-going and believed to be very positive.

Having had their hands burned trialling an inexperienced line-up that brought funding, Haas have flipped back to experience – and it’s paying dividends with the American team in the fight to finish seventh in what would be their best finish since 2018. It’s almost certain they will name an unchanged line-up for 2024.

Zhou the frontrunner to retain seat at Sauber

Valtteri Bottas already has a deal to race for the Sauber-run Alfa Romeo team next year, the Finn having signed a three-year contract that began in 2022 – but his team mate Zhou Guanyu still needs to put pen to paper if he is to stay on the grid for a third year.

The Chinese driver has upped his game in 2023, outshining his more experienced team mate Bottas for large chunks of the campaign and it is understood talks have already begun between Zhou’s management and the team about extending the partnership.

From what I understand, it is likely Zhou and Sauber (the team drop the Alfa Romeo moniker from 2024 onwards) will agree a deal for him to race on for 2024, which means he’ll get the chance to race F1 on home soil at the Chinese Grand Prix for the first time. Intriguing times at AlphaTauri

AlphaTauri are enduring their toughest season since a rebrand for 2020, with the Italian team languishing at the bottom of the constructors’ championship – and yet despite their struggles, seats at their operation are among the most sought after.

With Laurent Mekies set to take over as Team Principal, having been Sporting Director at Ferrari, and Peter Bayer stepping in as CEO, a new era is dawning at Faenza.

The team is expected to have a very close relationship with sister team Red Bull, which will likely see them take a significant amount of parts from the reigning world champions (as permitted by the rules) and that in turn should make them a more competitive operation.

It's part of the reason why Daniel Ricciardo would have preferred to return to F1 with the team next season but instead seized the opportunity ahead of Hungary when they parted ways with Nyck de Vries.

The Australian wants a return to Red Bull – but first he must sufficiently impress at AlphaTauri. The most likely scenario is that he excels at the Italian team, which sees him keep the seat for 2024 and puts him in a very strong position to replace Sergio Perez next to Max Verstappen at Red Bull in 2025.

But if Perez struggles in the second half of the season and Ricciardo delivers, they could move him up next season.

Regardless of what happens with the Australian, on the other side of the garage Yuki Tsunoda is doing everything right to secure a fourth season with the team. He’s stepped up to lead the team and comfortably outperformed De Vries. The Japanese racer looks like a more mature, all-round driver this year, having found ways to harness his speed and cut out the mistakes.

Sources say he is overwhelming favourite to retain his seat for 2024, providing he continues the strong form he’s consistently delivered this year.

Should Ricciardo not deliver or if he steps up to Red Bull, Liam Lawson is head of the queue to get the nod for the other seat, the New Zealander just one point off the championship lead in Super Formula. Ayumu Iwasa is a contender, too, but it is thought the F2 racer, currently third, would benefit from a third campaign in F1’s feeder series.

Ferrari already looking beyond 2024

While Ferrari have Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz signed up for 2024, their respective deals expire at the end of the campaign.

Sources say Ferrari have already opened talks with Leclerc and are keen to lock him down with a new multi-year contract. The Italian team are also believed to be keen to retain Sainz, though it is likely they will sort Leclerc’s contract first before getting the Spaniard’s deal finalised.

Sainz is in a good position though. The 28-year-old is believed to be highly-rated among Ferrari’s engineers and has proved he can deliver consistency – he’s scored points in all but two races this season. And sources say he’s had a flurry of interest – both formal and informal – from multiple rival teams for his services in 2025.

Thanks for your response. Free speech is a nuanced topic and I appreciate well though out discussions about it.

I agree, It's very hard to decide on a case by case basis what is and isn't tolerable. That's the main reason why I questions arguments for limiting speech--how can you make non-arbitrary distinctions between the two and who should have the authority to decide?

I think your example of speech advocating for women to not have the right to vote is a good subject to consider.

I agree, arguing that women shouldn't have the right to vote is beyond rediciulous and in a vacuum, it would be reasonable to consider that speech intolerable. But on the other hand, wasn't it freedom of speech that gave women the power to gain suffrage in the first place?

You mention drawing the distinction for intolerable speech at speech that limits the freedom of others. In an abstract sense I think that's reasonable, but in practice I'm not so sure. Anti-suffragists often argued that granting women the right to vote infringed on their freedom. That's obviously a morally wrong argument, but who should be allowed to decide that?

Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.

To be honest, I don't have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren't arbitrary or contradictory. There's a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.

For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?

If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won't squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren't part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?

Maybe I'm being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can't be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it's better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don't want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.

You're right. I guess accepting a mediocre bare-minimum forever is the best we should expect.

It's almost as if the broken door's existence depends on the fear of the wolf.

I don't understand how one can advocate for censorship, yet be incapable of defining what speech should be restricted.

I suppose it makes sense for somebody unable to express their belief system to also be unable to consider more than one viewpoint.

Maybe replacing the busted up door with a new one is a good idea?

It's not like you have to choose between only two options.

Who gets to decide what thoughts, beliefs, and groups are allowed to be tolerated?

Is there a quantifiable threshold for what is and what is not tolerable?

Does that threshold change over time?

That's exactly how it sounded to me too with all that "we agree on principles but not on the timeline" phrasing.

They may as well reset the clock on their 100 race plan.

There is obviously a minimum threshold that must be met. That's why there are provisions in place to make sure any new entrants have the potential to be successful--107% rule, facility inspections, 200M anti-dilution fund, etc. In fact, since the anti-dilution fund is distributed evenly the current backmarkers would have a financial windfall for the first several years of an 11th team.

The current backmarkers aren't even what I'd consider true backmarkers. Sure, Haas, AT, Alfa-Romeo, and Williams generally finish towards back, but at least they're all competitive with each other.

If you don't want to see traffic and backmarkers then should there even be 10 teams? Perhaps 9, or 5, or maybe they should only let the two fastest teams race. Traffic is an inherent part of racing.

I feel bad for people watching F1 that only care about who finishes 1st. There is so much exciting racing going on between every other team. 2021 is the exception, not the rule.

Agreed. This is a very sensationalist take on some old news. Where did the OP's write-up even come from?

RB/AT have been saying for a while that next season AT will use some components from RB per regulations, instead of completely developing their own car. This is no different than how Toro Rosso was ran and they certainly weren't identical to RB.

Very good point. I suppose with that in mind it's worse for Checo to have Tsunoda still in the RB "family".

I don't necessarily agree with the perspective that Redbull dominating is bad for the health of the sport.

Sure, lack of competition for 1st may drive away some fans. But if the conditions that allowed Redbull to become dominant (i.e., engineering/design freedom) didn't exist then F1 would no longer be F1. That design freedom attracts many fans, and is what enables all the recent excitement down-grid.

I think few people would care if everyone had equal cars, yet one team was able to consistently dominate due to driver talent. The opposite should also be true if one team is able to dominate due to engineering talent (granted there is more to RBs success than only engineering).

If this is true it's a big relief to Checo.