raymondcy

raymondcy t1_j5q7drk wrote

The longer one has an extended version of Prost's interview in the middle somewhere which provides a lot of context to the film that otherwise wasn't there. That is perhaps it's most glaring omission.

For the third point, you might be confusing that with the incident Niki Lauda had where he walks out based on exactly what you said, rain conditions. (edit: this is covered in the movie "RUSH" by Ron Howard - which possibly might be the greatest racing movie of all time).

In the Senna film (not sure which version) Senna walks out of the drivers meeting after a heated discussion about going out on the shoulder of the track by accident (there was a run off area in the chicane so if you missed the turn you didn't go into a wall). Senna was penalized for that and I think ultimately lost the championship because of that penalty. While other drivers freely got away with the whole thing as the F1 President wasn't a very big Senna supporter and personal friends with Prost. Senna walked out of that meeting - while his fellow drivers were in agreement with him.

Unbelievably, the fucking F1 actually wanted Senna to TURN AROUND and GO AGAINST TRAFFIC just to get back on the chicane.

Edit: One other fun fact, Senna excelled at racing in the rain. Him and Schumacher would run laps around the entire field when it rained. You can argue about what percentage the car wins races over a driver but when it rained those two drivers clearly proved they were exceptional drivers regardless of the cars performance.

4

raymondcy t1_j5pzakw wrote

There are actually 2 versions of this movie. The second UK version is extended by almost an hour - 162 mins vs 106.

In that they have a far better and greater conversation with Prost specifically and it feels a lot more balanced than the shorter version. No idea why they didn't release the longer version everywhere.

6

raymondcy t1_j1109mw wrote

> The Normandy landings were an irrelevant sideshow. Only important in determining who would rule in europe after the war.

While the Soviets have often been unfairly undermined for their role in the ending of WW2, what you just said is a huge stretch and, frankly, fairly offensive to the other Allied nations that gave their lives in that effort.

Could the Soviets keep running over Europe without the western front? maybe, is the answer; certainly not in a reasonable time frame. As the history of the war showed, the farther armies got away from their supply lines the more vulnerable they were. Just as in Stalingrad, there is nothing to say that Germany couldn't have regrouped and held out in their own position somewhere to amass an army for a major counter attack. And let's not forget Germany was by far technologically superior to the Soviets.

Because the German army had to defend on two fronts there is no possible way they could concentrate their forces in one position and overwhelm either front; especially after the affect that the west air power had against the Luftwaffe.

20

raymondcy t1_is7dqci wrote

What's interesting is that with the advent of Digital IDs on the horizon, you are basically required (not necessarily by law - but by logistics) to unlock your phone.

I think there needs to be a separation of technology on the phone to show your digital ID vs opening your phone. That is to say you can log in but only have access to your ID, everything else is still encrypted.

14