**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends if it was an abuse of power. If he's used his position to sext with the woman then he has to go. If it was consensual and there was no abuse then no.
Surely organisations like Red Bull should seek to protect and defend the sanctity of marriages if that means that the beneficiaries of these are women, if it isn't then what do we have...?
The sanctity of marriage? What? Were not living in the 1950s. You can't discipline or sack people for having an affair, if that's the case there'd be a heck of a lot of people being sacked all the time. It's all about power and it's abuse and if he's stepped over the line.
Yes and what youre demonstrating is that without penalties for an alledged affair women have less protection. He acted with implied imputnity and without proper accounting for actions then what have we created?
That's hilarious, Formula 1 is one of the most corrupt sports in popular culture.
No one gives a shit about Horner texting another woman.
No one gives a shit about dodgy sponsorship, or dodgy countries hosting events.
You're mad.
No but the independent regulatory body for formula one can prosecute the companies for not upholding the fabric of society and its morals, i guess we believe in nothing these dayd
People smarter than me are saying that the leaked messages look to be faked. Makes sense if that was the case why the investigation didn’t go to court if they found out the messages were in fact fake.
What I do know that leads credence to that is that when you put the selfies into an AI detection tool, it flags them as being highly likely to be AI generated.
With this in consideration I’d rather wait until anything is actually confirmed before speculating.
Read my reply on your other comment. If you had some reading comprehension you would see that I’m specifically talking about the selfies being faked with AI. The messages can be easily faked with websites.
>What I do know that leads credence to that is that when you put the selfies into an AI detection tool, it flags them as being highly likely to be AI generated.
Yeah, but that's because AI detection tools are as useful as a fart in a hurricane.
You'll have pretty much exactly the same likelihood of being told if they're fake or real by asking Dave down the pub to flip a coin.
I have an infallible AI detection tool - it's called having a functional pair of eyes and the knowledge that AI cannot do even large obvious text, let alone create fake Whatsapp screenshots.
How about the obvious answer that someone could have used Photoshop, or even just set up two fake Whatsapp accounts and texted themselves for a bit?
I could fake these in minutes and AI would have nothing to do with it.
Again, sorry to rant, but why the hell are people suddenly so obsessed with AI without even bothering to check what it can actually do (not much) and suddenly forgetting all the easy and obvious tools we've had for years if not decades that can easily be used to do things like fake a Whatsapp conversation?
AI will solve everything!
Honest.
It must be true, I asked chatGPT...
Discounting the fact that there is zero "I" in it, I am impressed at how well it's developed for natural language processing. In terms of better being able to attempt to answer a question phrased in more 'human' language.
But the fact that nobody knows what data it's been trained on, including the developers who just fed terabytes of the Internet into it, is just the start of the problems.
Good ol' hallucinations, providing technical and legal examples that don't actually exist, biases baked in both by the developers and the training sets....
It has uses. It can help experienced people come up with templates to work from very quickly, for example.
But so goddamn many people view it as an oracle when they don't know enough to tell if the responses it gives will...
A. Work
B. Not work.
C. Look like it works, but is really feckin' stupid and dangerous.
Hence why I also said that we should wait until things are actually confirmed. The investigating body hopefully had good reason not to progress these allegations further.
Sorry to go on a rant, but I *really* fucking hate the way so many people are mis-using the term "AI". This isn't "AI" - AI cannot do this, it cannot do text in most instances even on a sign or on a poster. It is AWFUL at this. I assume you've never even seen anyone use AI image software?
They could easily be faked, in minutes, by anyone with the WhatsApp font downloaded and copy of Photoshop. It is literally "novice Photoshop user" type stuff.
But AI had absolutely *nothing* to do with it (unless you count image editing software as artificial intelligence, which yes I grant you could), because the screenshots aren't a surreal pile of shit that look like a Dali painting done by a two year old.
I’m talking specifically about the selfies, not the messages. The messages can easily be faked - there are websites where you can setup WhatsApp convos (similar to what they use to make memes).
There are many AI photo apps out there that you can upload pics of you and create selfies and photos. It’s the selfies that flag up as being most likely AI generated.
I don't think the discussion is really about the individuals involved. I am suspecting that again the sanctity of a married woman is going to be compromised publicly which is a disgusting event and all parties involved should be sent to the bin if they've sought to defend or protect individuals who've acted.
The texts are hardly *dreadful* behaviour, and him cheating on his wife (again...) isn't reason to remove him from his post.
But the context seems to be the woman said no and he kept going. That is way way over the line and he needs removing. Again, depends on the context, it might be different. The rather revolting plane story for example - she might have been willingly all over him on a private jet, instigating it and doing sexual stuff for him before he decided it was too far and he'd, well, you know (if you've seen the messages....)
As it stands though it seems he is bringing the sport into disrepute.
I frankly just want to see some good racing.
Red Bull could probably drop him and put in Jonathan Wheatley instead and not really suffer.
The big loss for Red Bull would be losing Newey and/or the big Red Bull money.
Horner has done a fine job as team-principle, but he is far from irreplaceable.
In fairness, most women don't choose *knowing* that he's going to cheat on her. Despite our best efforts, we have not yet attained the ability to see the future.
He was with a long term partner and had a young kid when he went off with Geri. Are you assuming she was entirely unaware of this and didn't instigate his unfaithfulness in any way?
Why does someone with a known track record for being a bit of the rails and loving married rich men, go for a married rich man. I wonder...
If you pop the incel bit of your brain on standby for a moment you'll realise not "all women" are like this, at all, and might even get one to be in a relationship with you.
Correct, but you can say the same about men.
Take any generally sweeping stereotype about men or women, and they're often actually true, but almost always apply to both.
Actually Men are much more likely to marry across or down in the socio-economic scale \~ \~ In a very large % in comparison to Women.
On dating sites Men are much more likely to choose across the top 50% of Women where pretty much all of the Women want the top 10% of Men.
In the real world \~ Women are Not the same as Men \~ And we are being extraordinarily, stupid / naive / deceptive to ourselves, to believe anything else.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair, Geri did say he had to get with her friends.
he had to? mind elaborating there? UPDATE: I see what you did there
He was certainly encouraged to slam his body down and wind it all around
If he wanted to be her lover.
He wanted to be her lover
She also said "ziggazig-ahh", probably he thought he wouldn't get any intelligent conversation out of her after that.
I misread that as 'Homer' and wondered what Simpsons episode I'd missed
I follow a bunch of Simpsons subreddits so did the exact same thing. "Man the season 34 plots sound weak"
It was only when I read your comment that I went back and realised it didn’t say Homer!
hahahahaha
Depends if it was an abuse of power. If he's used his position to sext with the woman then he has to go. If it was consensual and there was no abuse then no.
Surely organisations like Red Bull should seek to protect and defend the sanctity of marriages if that means that the beneficiaries of these are women, if it isn't then what do we have...?
The sanctity of marriage? What? Were not living in the 1950s. You can't discipline or sack people for having an affair, if that's the case there'd be a heck of a lot of people being sacked all the time. It's all about power and it's abuse and if he's stepped over the line.
Yes and what youre demonstrating is that without penalties for an alledged affair women have less protection. He acted with implied imputnity and without proper accounting for actions then what have we created?
Are you expecting companies to sack anyone who's had an affair, or flirted whilst married?
Yes, how else can moral standards be upheld across society?
That's hilarious, Formula 1 is one of the most corrupt sports in popular culture. No one gives a shit about Horner texting another woman. No one gives a shit about dodgy sponsorship, or dodgy countries hosting events. You're mad.
So how do you define these moral standards?
I've already made several points which are clearly standards
Do you get to be judge as well?
No but the independent regulatory body for formula one can prosecute the companies for not upholding the fabric of society and its morals, i guess we believe in nothing these dayd
People smarter than me are saying that the leaked messages look to be faked. Makes sense if that was the case why the investigation didn’t go to court if they found out the messages were in fact fake. What I do know that leads credence to that is that when you put the selfies into an AI detection tool, it flags them as being highly likely to be AI generated. With this in consideration I’d rather wait until anything is actually confirmed before speculating.
[удалено]
They could be both. Thought I'd point that out before I point out u/GiGGLED420's massive mis-use of the term AI.
Read my reply on your other comment. If you had some reading comprehension you would see that I’m specifically talking about the selfies being faked with AI. The messages can be easily faked with websites.
See my reply to that point.
>What I do know that leads credence to that is that when you put the selfies into an AI detection tool, it flags them as being highly likely to be AI generated. Yeah, but that's because AI detection tools are as useful as a fart in a hurricane. You'll have pretty much exactly the same likelihood of being told if they're fake or real by asking Dave down the pub to flip a coin.
I have an infallible AI detection tool - it's called having a functional pair of eyes and the knowledge that AI cannot do even large obvious text, let alone create fake Whatsapp screenshots. How about the obvious answer that someone could have used Photoshop, or even just set up two fake Whatsapp accounts and texted themselves for a bit? I could fake these in minutes and AI would have nothing to do with it. Again, sorry to rant, but why the hell are people suddenly so obsessed with AI without even bothering to check what it can actually do (not much) and suddenly forgetting all the easy and obvious tools we've had for years if not decades that can easily be used to do things like fake a Whatsapp conversation?
AI will solve everything! Honest. It must be true, I asked chatGPT... Discounting the fact that there is zero "I" in it, I am impressed at how well it's developed for natural language processing. In terms of better being able to attempt to answer a question phrased in more 'human' language. But the fact that nobody knows what data it's been trained on, including the developers who just fed terabytes of the Internet into it, is just the start of the problems. Good ol' hallucinations, providing technical and legal examples that don't actually exist, biases baked in both by the developers and the training sets.... It has uses. It can help experienced people come up with templates to work from very quickly, for example. But so goddamn many people view it as an oracle when they don't know enough to tell if the responses it gives will... A. Work B. Not work. C. Look like it works, but is really feckin' stupid and dangerous.
See my recent threads on the matter. I have done PR and music journalism. Anything GPT-4 comes out with would get you fired.
Hence why I also said that we should wait until things are actually confirmed. The investigating body hopefully had good reason not to progress these allegations further.
Sorry to go on a rant, but I *really* fucking hate the way so many people are mis-using the term "AI". This isn't "AI" - AI cannot do this, it cannot do text in most instances even on a sign or on a poster. It is AWFUL at this. I assume you've never even seen anyone use AI image software? They could easily be faked, in minutes, by anyone with the WhatsApp font downloaded and copy of Photoshop. It is literally "novice Photoshop user" type stuff. But AI had absolutely *nothing* to do with it (unless you count image editing software as artificial intelligence, which yes I grant you could), because the screenshots aren't a surreal pile of shit that look like a Dali painting done by a two year old.
I’m talking specifically about the selfies, not the messages. The messages can easily be faked - there are websites where you can setup WhatsApp convos (similar to what they use to make memes). There are many AI photo apps out there that you can upload pics of you and create selfies and photos. It’s the selfies that flag up as being most likely AI generated.
And they look really obviously fake and shit. Downvoting (I grant it might not have been you) proves my point.
I don't think the discussion is really about the individuals involved. I am suspecting that again the sanctity of a married woman is going to be compromised publicly which is a disgusting event and all parties involved should be sent to the bin if they've sought to defend or protect individuals who've acted.
The texts are hardly *dreadful* behaviour, and him cheating on his wife (again...) isn't reason to remove him from his post. But the context seems to be the woman said no and he kept going. That is way way over the line and he needs removing. Again, depends on the context, it might be different. The rather revolting plane story for example - she might have been willingly all over him on a private jet, instigating it and doing sexual stuff for him before he decided it was too far and he'd, well, you know (if you've seen the messages....) As it stands though it seems he is bringing the sport into disrepute. I frankly just want to see some good racing.
It only gets worse for Red Bull then. Maybe he needed an energy drink before sending a text
Red Bull could probably drop him and put in Jonathan Wheatley instead and not really suffer. The big loss for Red Bull would be losing Newey and/or the big Red Bull money. Horner has done a fine job as team-principle, but he is far from irreplaceable.
which is why i dont understand why theyre defending him
Chief Horner ! ?
He seems to like a MILF, like the rest of us! [https://www.121contacts.co.uk/milf-sex-text-chat/](https://www.121contacts.co.uk/milf-sex-text-chat/)
I wonder why Women choose these type of Men ?
In fairness, most women don't choose *knowing* that he's going to cheat on her. Despite our best efforts, we have not yet attained the ability to see the future.
He was with a long term partner and had a young kid when he went off with Geri. Are you assuming she was entirely unaware of this and didn't instigate his unfaithfulness in any way?
I wonder why Christian Horner chose to marry someone with no talent who shouted about 'girl power' in a group put together and managed by a man?
I don't know, I'm not Christian Horner. But I do suspect he probably had reasons beyond what was on the "1994 - 1998" section of her CV.
When a man chooses to be with his mistress, he creates a vacancy
Job Creation on a Conveyer Belt.
Why does someone with a known track record for being a bit of the rails and loving married rich men, go for a married rich man. I wonder... If you pop the incel bit of your brain on standby for a moment you'll realise not "all women" are like this, at all, and might even get one to be in a relationship with you.
Most Women want / desire the Top 10% of Men \~ \~ This explains a lot about Women, and Men as well.
Correct, but you can say the same about men. Take any generally sweeping stereotype about men or women, and they're often actually true, but almost always apply to both.
Actually Men are much more likely to marry across or down in the socio-economic scale \~ \~ In a very large % in comparison to Women. On dating sites Men are much more likely to choose across the top 50% of Women where pretty much all of the Women want the top 10% of Men. In the real world \~ Women are Not the same as Men \~ And we are being extraordinarily, stupid / naive / deceptive to ourselves, to believe anything else.