You know, if nothing else, it shows you how quick they are with the commentary.
Also shows how quick Crofty is to throat-punch Brundle.
Absolutely took him out there, haha.
But also here...haha
Load more comments
That's a fucking man right there
Funny thing is, he really was a man child when we were growing up. He hit six feet tall in like fourth grade. Has bear paws for hands, etc. I saw that motherfucker drink a gallon of milk over the course of one Thanksgiving day, on top of all the food that was consumed. Truly a freakshow to behold.
Being an ogre myself, I feel his pain. When I was in fourth grade I was 5'8 and weighed 175lbs. The only restaurant I got to eat at were buffets. My favorite birthday memory was when I was in the fifth grade. My mom fried me a whole chicken, just for me. We were poor as dirt, so this was huge for me. I even got black eyed peas,collard greens to boot. With peach cobbler for dessert. It was awesome. I also got shoes that fit.
The upside to all of it was that at 35, I'm in better shape than anyone I graduated with. Still hungry all the time though.
Shoes that fit.
I feel you on that, bro.
I seriously don't get why some leagues put a stop to it. It's free advertising. To be fair it may be the media distributors that are stopping it instead off the leagues themselves but it's a great way to piss of your core audience.
it may be the media distributors that are stopping it instead off the leagues themselves
it may be the media distributors that are stopping it instead off the leagues themselves
This is correct. The leagues/sport organizers sell to TV networks/media distributors the right to broadcast their games, matches, races, or whatever. The media distributors then try to make a profit by selling airtime to advertisers. Thus, it's really the media distributors who have the most to lose when broadcasted content is reproduced elsewhere. Why? Because that waters down the value of the advertising time they're trying to sell, so they get less money for it.
In contrast, imagine a world where you really couldn't get any of the broadcast footage anywhere else except from the actual broadcast. In that case, everyone who's interested would watch the actual broadcast, giving advertisers a bigger, more concentrated audience.
With that as background, it's important to note that different sports function differently in this context. Typically, the more commercial breaks a sports broadcast has, the more vigilant media distributors are about removing reproductions of the broadcast. The NFL broadcasts, for example, are highly/vigilantly protected. F1 might not care as much, because there are no ads that run during the races. As Mother's is really a sponsor rather than advertiser, it gets the exclusive credit before, throughout, and after the race, so media distributors probably don't feel the need to remove reproductions in the same way as they might with the NFL games.
Edit: Going a bit deeper, there's another reason why nobody at Liberty Media or ESPN has been cracking down on reproductions in this sub. A few other comments have mentioned that this sub is basically free press for the sport, and while that's true, there's a far more important reason why we've been allowed to roam free here: this sub is a testing ground.
If you're interested, but not yet aware of the crazy relationship between Liberty Media, ESPN, and Disney, check out this comment that I posted back in May. The long and short of it is that Liberty wants to develop F1TV so that it can jettison outside broadcasting companies (like ESPN) altogether. Why would they do that? In order to get sponsors/advertisers, as well as F1 fans themselves, to pay Liberty directly. That's the whole point of F1TV -- to essentially cut out the middle-man broadcaster. Meanwhile, ESPN is trying to create a race-weekend experience that's good enough to prevent us from buying into F1TV, which would leave them out in the cold. What does all of that mean for this sub? Freedom.
You see, both companies want to study us. They're using the posts and interactions on this sub in order to gauge consumer interest, monitor responses to changes in coverage, etc., so that they can come out on top in the eyes of the F1 viewership. They usually have to pay for these sorts of insights (e.g., market studies, focus groups, etc.), but on here they can get them for free. They can also use the opinions and the content they find here in order to bolster their presence on other platforms. It is absolutely not a coincidence that the official F1 Instagram account re-posted something that had been hovering at the top of this sub. They saw that it was heavily upvoted, which gave them confidence that their Instagram followers would also enjoy it, so they posted it.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm certainly not saying this sub is the only source of consumer behavior that Liberty and ESPN are tapping into, and maybe this sub is just indicative of the desires of the broader audience, but either way, one has to admit that there's a pretty clear parallel between what goes on in here, and what goes on out there. "Ugh, we hate commercials during the races!" Before the next race, there's a singular sponsor (Mother's), and no more commercials. "What's up with the lack of tire info on the overlaid display?" Next race, tire info on the overlaid display. They even catered to our gripes about inserting letters into the little colored circles, to the point of changing from the 'S' designation for all soft compounds, to more specific ones like 'SS', 'US', etc. And did anyone notice the excitement on this sub regarding certain camera angles that were debuted earlier this season? Again, not a coincidence that we've seen those camera angles being used more often in subsequent races. It's just another aspect of the feedback loop.
Your explanation sounds like what their objective is with NBA TV. Cut out the middle man, especially in international markets where TV rights may not cover all games or any at all. Obviously F1 is a fairly different kettle of fish but it still stands true
Yep. Largely the same concept. The NBA has a slightly different angle since virtually all of the headline players have prominent individual apparel (especially shoe) deals with companies that are also sponsors either directly or indirectly, but it’s the same principle at work.
Trust me, it's a nation-to-nation relationship. Not country, but nation.
Although, yes, tribes are held to be simultaneously:
"Domestic, dependent nations" as per Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831
"Distinct, independent political communities" as per Worcester v. Georgia, 1832.
Not country, but nation
Not country, but nation
I gotta say, this seems like pure semantics. There is virtually no question that, in practice, the U.S. federal government owns and controls the very same lands that have been promised to Native American tribes.
I'm not saying that's right, but it's a reality. And I don't mean that it's just an administrative nuance (e.g., Department of Interior vs. State Department). If there was an attack on the U.S., for example, and the government decided that it was in the public interest to seize and make use of tribal lands, it absolutely would, with virtually no real consequences whatsoever.
That's not even close to the same thing as state sovereignty, which you seem to be implying the tribes have.
The tribes would likely be fine with this in a time of war. American Indians volunteer for military service unlike that of any other group.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because folks volunteer for military service doesn't mean that they'll acquiesce to government appropriation of their land. That goes for people of all races and ethnicities, not just Native Americans.
In fact, given the history of this country and its treatment of Native Americans, I would bet on pretty much the opposite of what you're saying. I bet they'd be the group most sensitive and/or resistant. After all, it's not as if appropriation and forced relocations have gone particularly well for them in the past.
Reddit app is doing something weird with the voting buttons on mobile. I MEANT to upvote but I can't tell if I picked the right option.
No worries, mate. I don't concern myself with it too much, but I appreciate the attempted upvote!
Meh, it’s mostly just from a previous toxic work environment where climbing ranks by discrediting others was a norm. I have since moved on to healthier places where it isn’t necessary to defend yourself constantly.
I hope everyone’s taking notes, because this person is putting on a bloody masterclass. This is Putin quality.
Edit: For context, these guys are joking about a fake cologne company called "Andy by Hamish." Andy is the black-haired guy, and he signed a blind contract (didn't know what it entailed) given to him by Hamish, the guy in the blue and white shirt. Jack is, well....a third wheel to all of their shenanigans.
“Would have” is not a fact.
Isn't it funny how, no matter WHAT topic or point is being discussed, a pedantic naysayer will always butt in to make an asinine comment?
Am I the only one who thought I was looking at Sacha Baron Cohen?
You don't know about all the times they didn't get caught. If they only get caught a small percentage of the time, then it could easily still be profitable.
Exactly. This was just another one of the times when they thought they wouldn't get caught.
if it's a clear case, money won't help you. there's only so much a lawyer can do for you, it's not like some kind of magic and if you throw enough money at it, it will go away
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Even in a clear case, there’s a phase of lawsuits called discovery, which is essentially the first real phase of a case. It’s the one where you get to request documents from the other side, take depositions, etc.
Folks who’ve gone against big corporations often refer to discovery as the “drowning stage.” You and your attorneys are intentionally inundated with an insurmountable number of court filings, requests for documents or information, etc. It’s probably the most heavily abused aspect of our civil judicial system. I can get further into why/how all of that occurs if anyone is curious, but I’ll skip that for now. Point is, the fundamental assumption you’re working with is flawed in the legal context — forget about public image.
And yet on top of that, the average person couldn’t care less what’s legally proven these days. They just don’t care. And we’ve seen it a million times — the court of public opinion is not the same thing as the court of law. People’s lives can be absolutely devastated by baseless allegations. The mere association of your name and a nefarious crime is enough to ruin you.
So maybe it won’t “go away” for someone like Elon Musk, but I would encourage you to look at what these suits do to the little guys who start them, and the way in which they become less than a footnote in the lives of people like Elon, Trump, etc. I’m not saying any of that’s right, but it’s a reality that you’re somewhat naive to ignore.
Which part do you use to think?
I'm sure her refusal went a long way after this fiasco
You might actually be surprised.
A lot of states have laws that prohibit involuntary commitment, and in a decent portion of those states, exceptions to the rule are very difficult to come by. It typically boils down to whether someone is considered a danger to themselves or others, but the standard for dangerousness is really high. Like, it has to be significant, imminent, etc. I remember reading a case summary in law school about a family who tried to have the matriarch committed because she had gone so nuts that she was eating her own feces. If I recall correctly, the court said that wasn't quite dangerous enough, because even though it might make her sick, it wouldn't immediately kill her.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying what this person did wouldn't qualify. Driving this way in traffic and (intentionally?) hitting a police car is pretty fuckin' reckless. I'm just saying that involuntary commitment is quite difficult in some places.
"I just wanted to fuck his shit up fam".
I would love to get some brutal honesty like this in F1, haha.
Lewis "These tyres are the best thing ever i think they're lucky let's use them next race"
Ferrari "Lewis won't stop bitching about these tyres even though they're only a few laps old lol they're so bad"
Seb: "....nahhhhh I don't believe that..."
SkyF1 "Why does Seb feel the need to take control of strategy and override the engineers all the time wtf primadonna?"
I don't believe that
I don't believe that
Possibly my favorite Seb radio this year. Just blatantly calling bullshit, haha.
Check the car when I come past. It's not that hard.
And the previous message was, "I can't see the damage. I don't know."
Favorite show is Miami Vice.
I see that quote & immediately thing of I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry. About the goddam ring.
I see that movie title & immediately think of Jessica Biel’s fantastic ass.
TTTHHHEEEY almost TTTOOUUCCHHH MARRTTTIINNNNN
(Credit to /u/drawuz for the source video, which is hilarious and can be found here)
"I never said that."
But we have it right
"No. I never said that. He's a liar."
But you just said
"No, he's a coward and a scoundrel. "
(3 weeks earlier): "Terrific guy. Always tells the truth."
Amazing how he manages to have so many great variations with such a simple design as his base helmet.
Good observation. The only thing I'd add is that, from a design perspective, he's actually able to create so many great variations because of the simplicity of the base-design, not in spite of it.
Apart from sponsors, his helmet is basically a white background (which can accommodate almost anything), with three perfectly straight stripes. It's conservative enough that you can use many variations of the additional elements (e.g., prancing horse, driver number, and even the Ferrari logo), and you can even play with the base design itself, as they did with the helmet for Germany this year.
Gotta love vettels helmet desings
So true. This one might take the cake for me. While I do like the usual white base color, I've always thought using chrome for the base color, and then matte colors for the german flag and a black prancing horse on the side would be badass.
Come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing a chrome F1 helmet in regular use. Do any of you guys?
is there still a butcher there?
or a delicatessen and groceries?
Whoa whoa whoa, it’s a fine delicatessen and grocer.
Yeah but the joke still went over your head so
Should've had an /s if it was a joke.
but even the whoosh didn't help you so... I don't know what to tell you. The sarcasm was pretty obvious without him having to point out the joke
Dude. What I'm saying is that I've seen people question legitimate NSFW tags so many times on here, that it's hard to tell when someone is actually making that joke. I understood both potential sides of the statement from the very beginning, but prior experience suggested it was entirely possible that the statement was made in earnest.
Now who's been bamboozled? lol
Me when my husband comes home early
Me when I come home early.
What’s the angle with us sending you another message?
I get that we’re the ones asking for something, but you could easily just PM us the album. You seem oddly insistent on us sending you an additional message to request the same content, but I could be over-thinking this. Normally I wouldn’t; it was the insistence across parties that drew my attention.
It's because links get taken down if they lead to NSFW. (Sometimes, and a few have been taken down) I don't get shit out of it but a bunch of horny dudes I have to take down one by one who didn't wanna do the work themselves.
Ah, that makes sense. And I’m sure the contributions are appreciated.
It's not illegal if you don't give it to someone else to drink. If it's clearly marked "do not drink this" because you've added laxative to it for your own purposes, and they end up drinking it, it's their own fault. (just to be clear, IANAL)
So, I actually am a lawyer. I'm gonna take a stab at analyzing this for folks, but I am by no means giving anyone legal advice, and I don't have any direct experience with this scenario, so take from the following what you will...
Criminal liability would be extremely unlikely here. I'm sure at least some states have laws that specifically cover poisoning, but even the states that don't would probably categorize it as a form of battery (i.e., non-consensual touching). Either way, the crime would include an intent element that prosecutors would have to prove in order to get a conviction.
Intent would be pretty difficult to prove in this scenario. It would be one thing if you went out of your way, actively encouraging people to consume the laxative-laced milk, like that kid who secretly gave pot brownies to a bunch of his classmates and teachers. But as long as the milk is just sitting in a fridge, there's virtually no evidence that you intended for someone else to drink it. That's especially true if the office has a general policy/commonly understood rule that you're not supposed to take from the refrigerator things that don't belong to you, and/or the milk was labeled with someone else's name or a "do not drink" warning.
There's also plausible deniability with respect to the act itself. "Oh, I was constipated that week, but didn't want to give up my morning cereal, so I popped some laxative in there." Hell, you could even just say you weren't the one to add the laxative in the first place. Maybe it was a coworker who was angry at you. Maybe it was your housemate or SO pranking you in poor taste. The world may never know.
On top of all that, there's also something to be said for the fact that whoever drank the milk was technically committing a crime themselves (theft). Homeowners shoot and kill home invaders every day. Do you think all of them do it perfectly by the book, the way the law says you have to do it (e.g., by warning the home invader first, or being in fear of death or serious bodily injury, or whatever your state's requirement might be)? No way. Prosecutors just don't pursue them very often. Same thing here, and this is about diarrhea, not homicide.
In short, I'd say that the only way this results in criminal charges is if the thief/victim suffers great harm as a result -- e.g., an allergic reaction that results in a seizure, damage to internal organs, etc. -- which leads to increased pressure for an investigation into what happened.
Whether you could lose your job or be sued in civil court are different issues, but I'd be happy to go through those if anyone's interested.
Since September 2018