So interesting ties well into a discussion i posited yesterday. But seems the software was really killing Georges energy deployment.
Let's hope it works.
Ironically i do think it strengthens a couple of theories of why they had poor soc.
This will be rather short. But i have been watching and reading various takes on George russells car problems. I have seen one theory that would make a lot of sense by con's sporting-motor-tok. At least for both Austria and spa. It was supposedly prompted by George comments on battery status around the early corners. The 40% down.
The theory is in short, blame the black box of software for the battery. Why? Because of the start and charge cycle.
He observed that during spa's start both telemetry and footage showed a slow roll on Russell's car during the start which makes sense as spa is on an angle. While most drivers were hard on the brakes George wasnt. Now the rules permit the use of negative torque to charge the battery.
The theory proposes that the software is basically viewing these movements as a launch and therefore the battery levels aren't actually sufficient, which neatly explains why George is down so much on the turn.
Now the only thing that i see which really kills the theory is the other car unreliabilities and how the fuck merc hasn't noticed. But it could just be George specific and dependant on code.
Edit: it may also explain the straight line speed as George would need to spool up more the charge the engine denying him the boost antonelli is achieving.
Curious on what you guys think?
(Note my personal beliefs deviate though i think it is a viable theory. My personal thoughts is that the car is generally more fucked than that and mercedes just isn't in a rush because antonelli is in the lead, so they are being a bit slow to take risks. I do think that while the car is generally fucked i also do not agree with most people on how good he is, i think even if the car was on form he would still struggle against Antonelli, but it certainly would be closer. But at the same time i think the Mercedes PU is fucked in general it seems highly unreliable even antonelli is having issues, which why I think the idea of favouritism is However, silly. If George was the one leading and antonelli was struggling one they would also be slightly slower and second the community would be far less kind to antonelli then George. From what i have personally seen in the last few years George is far more beloved on the online space or at minimum on reddit and among serious creators.
I say this as my personal friend group despises the guy, however we are are Aussies and they hate Brits so no suprise there. Even i can admit i dont quite like russel but even i can admit there is an issue or he is at least superbly unlucky)
I do understand that this is a somewhat treaded topic but i wanted to finally voice my thoughts on it and see what you guys thought being so enthusiastic about the media and ask you all if there is any sources which may illuminate my perspective.
Now context, this has all been prompted by watching a video about a content creator, going on a bit of a comedic rant. the argument itself was pretty simple and was mostly a bit for the skit. but i found the reaction particularly grating. because the simple reaction by most people even other content creators was, "ohhh he just doesn't understand"
However, i feel this misses entirely the complaint entirely. the Complaint was basically that George Lucas is contradictory. he states that the force is a force, apologies for the pun. of two opposing sides. well known to be typically influenced by both Taoist and Buddhist influences. the famous yin and yang. BUT he states that the force can only be in balance with the destruction of the Sith and darkside. which is per the creator why grey Jedi make sense.
NOW i don't like and have never liked the concept of grey Jedi, for one its just a middle ground fallacy. BUT that doesn't mean that the creator's point doesn't hold true. his name is david by the way channel is sellsword arts little to do with star wars most of the time.
Still i would say fundamentally the concept that the light is balance does not hold up to scrutiny within these philosophical frameworks. Yin and yang is all about the nature of one part requiring the other, if the force is inspired by this then fundamentally balance is not a light side phenomena.
saying that balance requires equal light and dark isn't that much of a leap. nor is pointing out this contradiction misunderstanding.
It is simply the rejection of the doyalist reasoning behind the fundamental idea that light is balanced. because then it isn't yin and yang. it doesn't even line up well with the Buddhist influence George supposes though i do admit that is more debatable and dependent on which form of Buddhism you discuss. instead you could argue its far more Abrahamic in interpretation. (you resist temptation you trust the force to guide you and in return you will survive and become one with the force. lines very well up with Christian dualistic interpretations of sin, the holy spirit and heaven. the holy spirit being the force. also being one with the force. aligns well with the idea of being close to god which is what makes heaven, heaven).
to insist that the dark side functions like a cancer itself is flawed because then it is not a natural counterpart to the light, what is? what is the Yang to the yin? this is made even more problematic when the darkside is derived by emotion a perfectly natural thing. I feel that the amount of hoops needed to jump to make it work just creates an utterly convoluted mess. especially when you posit the idea that the sith and in turn the dark side need destruction. hell even if it is just the sith, why is no darkside balance. if it is a force that cannot be destroyed. once again the idea that the dark side is completely no go, is far more Abrahamic.
i would posit that too make it work within the story. is to establish a very different understanding of the force and that in turn changes the story. for example, you could have it that the Jedi aren't specifically light side users. they use as need be, but not much of the media i have interacted with supports such an interpretation. though it is possible, too my knowledge the movies prequal or original trilogy never call the force by the light side. only the force. but then the darkside would then really be the dark side in a much more specific sense then broad sense typically thought of (for example specifically things like hate). but even then it still struggles because it would mean that the patent philosophy of the light side, too by in the state of peace. doesn't work. there is no light side and it makes the darkside very out of place, because it then doesn't actually act as an opposing yang making the entire Taoist element completely moronic and effectively non existent. it also rejects the typical Buddhist philosophy by embracing the emotional earthly ties. making the light side itself deeply unexplored and if you dislike the Abrahamic elements this answer still leaves them in.
i would also say that it lends itself poorly to the movies, because if that was the case then the typical jedi approach makes no sense to the idea by suppressing emotion. so logically they are lightside users.
(side tangent, no matter what i would say they are advocates of suppressing emotion, there is no meaningful way you could say that Anakin's fears could not be felt or simply let go without catharsis which by its nature is to suppress the emotion until it passes. i find arguments that they don't supress emotion flawed.)
I do have my own personal writing solution but i doubt you all would like to hear it and too wrap this up as it is midnight for me and i require sleep before work.
This isn't a defense of some 50/50 split concept. i don't even like the idea of grey Jedi, they reek of my guy is special. but the idea that light is balanced is patently absurd from the philosophical roots they are present. it is also contradicted within the media by mortis. just because Lucas said it doesn't make it true death of the author. david even points out by saying Lucas is contradictory.
by just saying "you just dont understand" feels like a lazy attempt to hand wave it rather then address the clear problem in the writing.
but i could be wrong i would love to see you guys prove that in a constructive manner. HAVE A LOVELY NIGHT/DAY!