Gavin Whitaker

@effonecasualfan Positive emotion maybe but including any emotion for me it has to be when Grosjean went up in flames.

no

@effonecasualfan Fair enough. My pushback was never about defending the sponsorship, it was that calling it legacy-cancelling hypocrisy felt too strong for what it is. Agree he’s net positive. Cheers.

"criticising someone for doing real legacy work because of a tech sponsorship came across as snark" Go back, read what I wrote, I never criticised the work he's doing. I criticised the major claims he makes because they are completely antithetical to the action that I specifically pointed out. It's an analogy, and the level of running for the defence of everything is honestly silly at this point the whole thing could have easily ended with," yeah, that's not a good thing..I still think he's a net positive" but first whitewashing AI, then his actions.. it's pointless at this stage...cheers!

“I don’t just want to be a driver. I want to leave the next generation a world that’s a little better than the one we have now.” -Lewis Hamilton Perplexity is the way to do it 🤷🏽‍♂️

@effonecasualfan My actual point: criticising someone for doing real legacy work because of a tech sponsorship came across as snark. A Perplexity deal isn't remotely in the same category as the Gates analogy you just reached for and reaching for it kind of proves the point about proportion.

"You read any tech engagement as total betrayal" I don't, I read it as not standing on your values, or not having the advertised ones. It's not tech engagement it's association with something that leads to stuff you've spoken against. And it's dumb thing to bring his other initiatives into it, Bill Gates has done plenty of Philanthropic work, he's also involved in a Paedophile racket, if everytime I talk about Bill I have to throat clear and meantion his philanthropic work then we're missing the point

@effonecasualfan If "having values" means 100% purity with zero trade-offs, nobody on earth passes. I'll keep judging people on actual net impact. Have a good one. 2/2

"AI has costs but also helps climate modelling, grids and clean tech." you might need to read more about the impact of AI, who holds the power with it before you make these claims because they're ridiculously incorrect "Not defending ‘anything’, but the constant ‘Hamilton fan defending everything’ line just shows you’re stuck in your own head on this." You just did, you just defended a blatant hypocrisy either by not being well-read on something like this or just forcefully trying to both-sides something that goes against what Lewis preaches

@effonecasualfan AI has costs but also helps climate modelling, grids and clean tech. Not defending ‘anything’, but the constant ‘Hamilton fan defending everything’ line just shows you’re stuck in your own head on this. 2/2

@effonecasualfan Black-and-white thinking turns nuance into ‘blatant hypocrisy’. Mission 44 delivers real action on marginalised communities and education, not cancelled by one sponsorship. Progress always involves trade-offs. By that logic we’d still be tilling fields by hand. 1/2

@effonecasualfan Social impact isn’t cancelled by one AI sponsorship. AI has energy costs, but it can also aid climate solutions (modeling, grids, clean tech). This feels like a stretch that diminishes concrete good for cheap snark.

There's no gotcha trolling here, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who talks about the marginalized, about wealth disparity, about climate change and co, but his actions are contrary to his chatter I don't think I need to go too deep into how AI impacts on almost all of those aspects

@effonecasualfan Dismissing real human impact for a snarky ‘Perplexity is the way’ shrug just looks ignorant. AI has energy costs, but it can also help fight climate issues via better modeling, grids & clean tech. Missing the point entirely. 2/2

@effonecasualfan Bit tedious gotcha trolling. The article isn’t about Perplexity, it’s about a multifaceted legacy beyond racing. Mission 44 is getting more Black pupils into STEM, recruiting Black STEM teachers & breaking barriers for underserved kids. 1/2

@effonecasualfan Good exchange though.

@GavinWhitaker Yeah I don't agree with the notion of having different standards for different errors

A 100% !!!!! He was a scapegoat because no one wanted to own up to their own flaws! Both Mercedes and Red Bull played a dangerous game, Red Bull came out on top...neither had an issue while they were party to it

@effonecasualfan Yes, partly it is optics, same as healthcare, where skipping a procedure that kills someone ends a career, and skipping the same procedure with no harm done often doesn't. Outcome shapes accountability. Not always fair, but it's how high-stakes roles work everywhere, not just F1.

@effonecasualfan Think we'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, procedures and judgment calls sit in different categories, straying from written procedure is taking on risk that judgment calls don't carry, and that's why the accountability differs. 1/1

@effonecasualfan Fair correction, I overstated Wittich. He's describing the FIA's conclusion and calling it scapegoating, not agreeing Masi got it wrong and that's why he had to be unfairly scapegoated. My read was wrong, hands up.

"And Wittich himself says "Michael had to go." Even your source concedes he couldn't stay" Err...did you read the whole thing where he specifically said "basically finding a scapegoat" which essentially means he's not in agreement of the call made? Again, the whole "championship-deciding error" stuff reels of this desperation to have a head on the stake that's all, i can give 10 other moments that could be called championship deciding but it's all just about optics here

@effonecasualfan I am open to judgement calls being 'wrong' following procedures however are not judgement calls, by following procedure you are protecting yourself, if you stray away from the procedure, well, you are taking a risk

@GavinWhitaker Both are sports, officiating errors are part of a complex sport like this one. It was a high stakes season, things do go wrong. Unless we are saying one kind of error is bigger than the other then, which would be inappropriate, it doesn't hold true

@effonecasualfan It is my opinion that his position was untenable after he failed to follow procedure which effectively resulted in him determining who the champion would be and I am not suprised or outraged that he was sidelined. I agree factors contributed to this which have now been removed.

Ofcourse he had credibility, A 4x F1 champion, one of the more respected voices came out in support of him, so did multiple drivers (Lando, Daniel, Alonso) Team bosses( Otmar, Guenther) As I said, you didn't like the optics of it and you want a head on the stake, that's all, Even though the people that led to this, -FIA -FOM -Mercedes -Red Bull Had nothing happen to them.... And you're completely fine with that. You don't want accountability here, you just need a head on the stake for what happened... And that way...we don't solve anything, we learn nothing either!

@effonecasualfan One's judgment, these errors are part of the job. The other's written procedure, these errors aren't, especially on the final lap of the final race with no season left to absorb them.

@GavinWhitaker Sure, but both are errors, aren't they? Letting Lewis get away by cutting the track on lap 1 was Masi's discretion and it was a grossly incorrect call by all means... there's a likelihood that could have cost Max the championship, Why was that ok then?

@effonecasualfan it would have been impossible for him to continue to perform the role as he would have had no credibility.

@GavinWhitaker There was nothing impossible to perform. All it required was taking ownership which nobody did.... It is this "I want his head on the stake because he did something that didn't work for me" mentality that I can't attest to whatsoever

@effonecasualfan One is sport. The other is officiating failure at the moment of maximum scrutiny. That's where accountability attaches, not optics. 2/2

@GavinWhitaker A judgement call watched by millions in the final race of the season? See the problem with it essentially just comes down to 'the optics were bad'?