Would a tablet be worth considering then? You could probably pick up a new iPad (either the 9.7" or 10.5" model) for about that much—you'd get great performance, solid battery life, and a really nice screen—and for a little extra, you could just pair it with a Bluetooth keyboard to make typing longer pieces easier when necessary 🤷
I'm just throwing this out there because a Surface Pro is definitely out of his budget—even at its cheapest—and since you mentioned there isn't much else out there under 13.3", at least nothing worth mentioning 🤷 If there's some obscure brand offering something similar, I wouldn't know, but as far as I can tell, Microsoft is the only one making anything in that 12-12.5" range.
If Richard Palmer91 were to grab a base-model X240 and just toss in some extra RAM whenever he felt like it—which, honestly, even a total novice could figure out via YouTube tutorials—he’d end up with a little beast that covers almost everything he needs. He’d get way more bang for his buck that way. 🤷
The Surface Pro that actually fits his price point would probably be an SP4, but that's a bit of a downgrade compared to the X240—plus, you can't really upgrade or repair them, and I guess you have to wonder what kind of shape the battery would be in after all these years.
ThinkPad X240 is probably your best bet for that budget—honestly. Sure, you're looking at used gear, but if you find them in good shape, it's a solid move. You might have to hunt around on Amazon or eBay to find the right deal. If the screen ends up being a TFT, you can always swap it out for a decent IPS later, assuming you don't mind a bit of tinkering. Upgrading the RAM, SSD, and other bits—like the WWAN or the WiFi adapter—is usually pretty straightforward.
Joseph Taylor11 said:Personally, I’d take it a step further. Let's just ban leaving your house entirely. If you dare to crack a window, that's a fine of 15 $0.00- 30 $0.00—depending on how big the window is. Opening a door? That’ll cost you 50 $0.00.
And why not just introduce a mandatory new tax—a quarantine levy—based on square footage to cover all the quarantine costs?
Jack Cook7 said:And I was like, "told ya!" I said this stuff would last way longer—at least 6 months. Honestly, maybe even years.
Look at Hong Kong. They had everything totally under control, case numbers were dropping. Then they loosened up the isolation rules, and boom—in just one week, the number of new cases doubled. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/23/a...hnk/index.html
Hong Kong appeared to have the coronavirus under control, then it let its guard down CNN Digital expansion 2017. James Griffiths Analysis by James Griffiths, CNN
Updated 0837 GMT (1637 Hong Kong Time) March 23, 2020 .......... Now, however, Hong Kong is providing a very different object lesson -- what happens when you let your guard down too soon. The number of confirmed cases has almost doubled in the past week, with many imported from overseas, as Hong Kong residents who had left -- either to work or study abroad, or to seek safety when the city seemed destined for a major outbreak earlier this year -- return, bringing the virus back with them.
Of course it will last—it's just the way he tossed that sentence out without any hesitation that feels a bit eerie. It seems like they had this planned from the jump, so this whole "30 days" thing might just be a complete distraction.
I’m just sitting here listening to the News (CNN) and some guy from the Government says "people need to get used to these measures because they won't be around for just a few weeks—they'll be here for much, much longer".
Well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. 😁 I’d honestly love it if that theory about the warmer weather actually turned out to be true—if there's any silver lining to be found in all this, maybe it's just that everyone's personal hygiene levels might improve a bit, which certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.
wiredseal7 said:I think you missed her point—she actually specified that it isn't resistant to higher temperatures.
So, how do we account for the virus existing and spreading in places where it's consistently over 73°F? For instance, Australia was seeing the tail end of summer until just a couple of weeks ago, and they currently have 300 cases. Or maybe look at Malaysia (428), Qatar (337), or Bahrain (214)...?
hiddenhound3 said:It’s apparently sensitive to temperatures above 23°C (about 73°F).
The human body temperature—where the virus actually lives—is obviously much higher than 23°C, so by that logic, the virus shouldn't even stand a chance inside us. And yet, somehow, it does.
I'm really not sure where this nonsense keeps coming from... 🤦
Lol, Jerry Robinson56, that’s hardly surprising. It is a bit surprising, though, that you haven't put him on ignore—which I assume everyone else has done after reading more than one of his posts 🤷
That’s just it. He had a 3.3-second gap—once he heard about the penalty, he spent the rest of the race complaining over the radio instead of actually driving.
Sebastian Vettel might have actually pulled off a win despite the penalty—mostly because he was sitting 3.3s ahead of Lewis Hamilton and spent the rest of the race complaining over the radio about how unfair everything was—instead of just keeping his head down and driving his heart out to finish strong, which is probably what Hamilton would have done.
Nicole Taylor said:Since you aren't capable of having a civil conversation, I'm out.
I don't respond to provocations—nor do I care for them, really.
🤣
Coming from someone who actually made this exact provocation earlier:
Nicole Taylor said:You seem to love Palmer's analysis so much that you're repeating it like a parrot—yet when Palmer was critical of Hamilton and Mercedes, you were suddenly all for the opposite view.
But when I asked for a link proving my previous statements didn't align with Palmer, he couldn't provide one—probably because he's busy and can't be expected to 🤣 🤣
Nicole Taylor said:I don't really have the bandwidth to hunt down links across the forum right now—too many other things on my plate, I guess.
I don't have the time to dig through old threads for links—but even with everything else going on, I recall that I wasn't exactly a fan of Palmer's analysis when he was taking aim at Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz. It was... interesting, to say the least. 👍
Nicole Taylor said:Maybe you're the only one who thinks it's consistent—I mean, talking to people outside of Reddit and keeping up with the global F1 media, everyone seems to agree that it's anything but. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point.
I guess you're the only one who thinks that's common knowledge—maybe.
Nicole Taylor said:Regarding the insults—the "clueless" comments and accusations of lying—I’d kindly ask you to mind your manners. I don't believe in personal attacks, and I certainly wouldn't want to start one with you.
Accusing someone of something without any actual proof—well, I guess that’s just lying, not an insult.
Nicole Taylor said:As far as my knowledge—or lack thereof—regarding Formula 1 goes, I’ve been following the sport for over 25 years now. If you're curious about anything else regarding my experience with motorsports, I guess you can feel free to ask.
Ah—those same old arguments, year after year—I guess they just never change. 😁 It’s only logical that you know more about Formula 1 than, say, Max Verstappen or Charles Leclerc—since you've likely been following the sport longer than those two have even been around—and I suppose even Daniel Ricciardo wouldn't stand much of a chance in a comparison with you. 👍
Nicole Taylor said:This is quite interesting. It seems like you’re finding Palmer's analysis particularly appealing—you're repeating it constantly, almost like a parrot, I guess.
It doesn't really suit you—mostly because you aren't exactly an expert when it comes to Formula 1. But that’s fine, I suppose; one learns as long as they're still breathing.
Nicole Taylor said:Back when Jolyon Palmer was writing his critiques against Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-Benz—well, things were viewed in a completely different light then, I guess.
It isn't exactly right to lie the way you're doing here—I guess. Maybe try backing up your claims with a link next time (not that you actually can, since it seems like you're just making things up).
Nicole Taylor said:It isn't really about the penalty itself—that's fine—but rather how inconsistent it all feels. One race they hand out a penalty, then the next one it’s just brushed off as a "racing incident." I guess it's just hard to call.
It seems to be remarkably consistent—I guess.
Nicole Taylor said:In some races, you get hit with penalties, while in others—for seemingly the exact same thing—you don't. I guess that’s really the core issue with Formula 1. You never quite know when a penalty is coming or when it isn't. On top of that, the FIA and their stewards always seem to have these mysterious clips and data sets that nobody else gets to see—except them. If their decisions at a race are actually debatable, maybe they should just share those recordings and data points; then we could actually settle the debate.
It seems like the FIA’s primary occupation is just trying to convince the folks over on Reddit that something is actually true.
Let me just repost my previous comment since it seems some of you missed the point regarding that infamous Monaco 2016 incident:
crimsonhawk23 said:Back in Monaco 2016, Lewis Hamilton got back on track and Daniel Ricciardo was still trailing significantly behind him.
During Formula 1 Canada in 2019, Sebastian Vettel rejoined the track ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HAMILTON'S CAR, not IN FRONT OF him like what happened previously.
I realize people enjoy playing expert without actually checking the regulations—which are public on formula1.com—but Monaco 2016 and Canada 2019 only share the fact that they were both Formula 1 races. Canada was a clear penalty situation; Monaco wasn't. Maybe try reading the rules and looking closer.
Also, it’s worth remembering that 5 seconds is the smallest possible penalty in Formula 1. They couldn't penalize Sebastian Vettel with anything less because nothing less exists. And the situation definitely warranted a penalty, as Jolyon Palmer explained and argued quite clearly:
crimsonhawk23 said:Jolyon Palmer column: Why Sebastian Vettel deserved his penalty
By the letter of the law, Vettel was guilty.
He either crowded another driver off the circuit - OFF The Circuit - Hamilton into The wall on The EXIT of Turn Four, to the point where the Mercedes-Benz driver had to anchor on the brakes to avoid a collision.
Or, as his defence said, his natural momentum took him across the full width of the circuit. But in that case he is guilty of rejoining the circuit in an unsafe manner, as he was not in full control of his car, to the extent that he ran Hamilton OFF The Road in an unsafe manner. One of these scenarios has to be correct.
If he was forced to run all the way into Hamilton, that's not safe. If he wasn't, then he deliberately did it, and that's not fair and deserves a penalty.
You can't have it both ways, and you need to have it both ways to avoid the penalty here.
Besides, for everyone claiming Vettel shouldn't have been penalized here, I suppose you should ask yourselves if you'd feel the same if Romain Grosjean or, heaven forbid, Max Verstappen were in that exact spot. You don't even need to answer, because we all know the truth. Though, I imagine there would be plenty of shouting about how it should have been a race ban and how a 5-second penalty is a joke for such a "horrific crime."
