Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmontra | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I understood your question. Literally, of course not, but how does it relate to my points?

If I had a car 100 km/h faster on straights, after some training I would probably win Monza, but that would be a car that does not conform to F1 rules (or we would have that kind of speeds now) so that would not be a F1 race.

Maybe your question is about the sharing of praise between the team and the driver. I think that every race fan agrees that when a team did a much better job than all the other ones and have a dominant car, the championship is a competition between the two drivers of that team. So the car is the single most important factor. Then the best driver wins. Nobody can overcome a one second difference in a season of 24 GPs.

But maybe you asked a different question.

View on HN

It's more to say that F1 drivers are a selected niche that is very good at winning F1 races, representing maybe a 200 to 5000/8,300,000,000 group. I doubt you could win an F1 race at all, respecting the rules. Whether the team deserves praise or not, the drivers show exceptional aptitude to win.

If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used.

Edit0:I would bet that a normal run of the mill random human would be likely to kill themselves racing (with actual intent) an F1 car.

Have a good one!

Well, I'm absolutely sure I can't win a race respecting the rules. I would bet that no HN reader can, even if I don't know if there are pro drivers here.

I add that my bet of winning at Monza (a stop and go track with minimal turning) with a non conforming 100 km/h faster car is optimistic. Honestly, I would brake too early, carry not enough speed through chicanes and corners, waste a huge part of my speed advantage by starting accelerating from lower speed.

I also think that 50+ laps will give me plenty of chances of crashing out even with plenty of training. Maybe even kill myself, as you write.

Maybe I could take pole position with the (very) old format of the best time of two 1 hour sessions on Friday and Saturday. I think it ended in the 90s.

I still don't understand the relationship between your question and the discussion on AIs.

If only a small, highly trained and specialised group can use a tool to accomplish a task that can't be accomplished by people not from the group, with or without the tool, it shows to me the proficiency of the people using the tool.

You might've missed my sentence about Terrence Tao?

Maybe I'm dense and haven't understood why you've brought up racing?

Edit0: about killing yourself driving: it highlight that the tool can't be considered "the main contributor"to an achievement if 99,99% of people would not achieve the same outcome but would be likely to die from misuse instead. The person that wrangles it and achieves exceptional outcome is all the more to praise in my book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com