Partial rebuttal. If you increase the power draw, you need more pins dedicated to power and ground. Without reducing functions, this needs a different footprint. They have had issues with some CPUs in the past. bugs in complex systems are basically unavoidable, its just in hardware you can't just issue a software patch to fix it 100% with no negative effects.
Nvidia has been anti-competitive as long as I can remember. They put out dev tools that basically break games on AMD. That's just their operating model. I don't know that that's enshittifying as it often makes their own product better, its just being an anti-competitive ass.
I can't comment too much to your other points. I think some of the memory was down to the memory chip makers, not the product makers, but I can't back that up.
You might not like the prices, but computer components, cpu, gpu, motherboard.. keep getting better each generation, some bugs cause issues, but that's due to trying to maximize performance, not cheeping out. 3-d printer tech. In fact, thinking about it, a lot of competitive products keep their quality. Also small brand premium products in general.
I'll agree g iii could fit. If it was an out lap, or if he went into the pits at the end of the lap, the time wouldn't have been deleted, and although time was lost, was it "significant"?
And 40.3 specifies for repairs not covered in 40.2. So no harm in asking anyway, certainly better than a DQ.
Looks like approval was needed and granted changed during parc ferme
From the document:
Car 01: Floor assembly (without skids and plank)
Floor keel panel
All above parts have been replaced with the approval of the FIA technical delegate following a written
request from the team concerned, this being in accordance with Article 40.3 of the 2024 Formula
One Sporting Regulations.
Thanks for the source. changed during parc ferme
From the document:
Car 01: Floor assembly (without skids and plank)
Floor keel panel
All above parts have been replaced with the approval of the FIA technical delegate following a written
request from the team concerned, this being in accordance with Article 40.3 of the 2024 Formula
One Sporting Regulations.
Yes, and even if he didn't the team should have told him, because they did know. From the report: "The team confirmed in the hearing that the driver had been advised to bring the car back to the pits as they were trying to avoid a Safety Car situation."
If you penalize a car every time they drop carbon on the track your probably going to have at least one a race. Where did Leclerc's end plate go, he was missing part of his wing. How about the bits of Norris's tire that were flying everywhere, and probably bits of carbon from the floor because of it.
Perez was a clear retirement, there was no repair possible. The rear wing assembly could have fallen off. The only reason he brought the car back is the team told him to to avoid the possibility of a safety car.
As far as I know, Max only maybe had slight damage from the contact, plus the loose tire, drivers regularly drive back to the pits in this configuration. They don't usually keep racing/defending with a flat tire though.
l_b_i @ l_b_i @yiffit.net Posts 6Comments 144Joined 2 yr. ago
Partial rebuttal. If you increase the power draw, you need more pins dedicated to power and ground. Without reducing functions, this needs a different footprint. They have had issues with some CPUs in the past. bugs in complex systems are basically unavoidable, its just in hardware you can't just issue a software patch to fix it 100% with no negative effects.
Nvidia has been anti-competitive as long as I can remember. They put out dev tools that basically break games on AMD. That's just their operating model. I don't know that that's enshittifying as it often makes their own product better, its just being an anti-competitive ass.
I can't comment too much to your other points. I think some of the memory was down to the memory chip makers, not the product makers, but I can't back that up.