Connect with us

Tech

Formula 1: Watch the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, F1 Racing in 2022

Published

on

Formula 1: Watch the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, F1 Racing in 2022

F1 will be racing through Baku this week in the Azerbaijan Grand Prix. Charles Leclerc, Ferrari’s driver, is in pole position. Red Bull’s Max Verstappen will be third. Despite finishing third at Monaco, Verstappen still holds a slim lead over Leclerc in Drivers Championship standings ,. Meanwhile, Mercedes megastar Lewis Hamilton has yet to win a race in 2022 and will try to claw his way to victory from seventh place on the grid.

This week’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix will air on Sunday, June 12 at 6: 55 a.m. ET (3: 55 a.m. PT) on ESPN.

Will Leclerc continue his unexpected success and win back the top spot from the hard-charging Verstappen? Hamilton will he be able to get back in contention?

Anyone who wants to keep up with all the action will need to have access to ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 2 and ESPNews. All of the race weekend including qualifying and practice sessions will be broadcast in the USA on ESPN’s network of television networks.

No one provider holds exclusive rights to the network. There are many ways to access ESPN and to watch the races without cable. This article will explain how to stream F1 racing this season.

Charles Leclerc stands in his Ferrari racing uniform in front of a red Ferrari logo.

Charles Leclerc of Ferrari will start the Azerbaijan Grand Prix from pole position.


Getty Images/Dan Mullan

What is F1 and how is it different from IndyCar?

Both IndyCar is a single-seater, open-wheeled racing format. The cars are designed to only accommodate one person, and the wheels protrude from their bodies. F1 and IndyCar have very different experiences, despite their similarities.

In F1, there are only 10 teams, with two drivers apiece for a total of 20 drivers. Most races must go for 305 km, which is about 190 miles. Every driver must use two tires during the race. A pit stop is required, but cars are not permitted to refuel. Races last around two hours and are held at various venues around the globe.

Teams invest hundreds of millions each year in developing their cars. Every car must have certain elements, such as eight gears plus reverse, and must last for six consecutive races. However, teams have the freedom to modify and change parts of their cars, including engines, in pursuit of speed.

In contrast, IndyCar cars are more standard. All of them have the same aerodynamic kits and chassis, and can only be powered with one engine — either a Honda- or a Chevrolet-powered engine. However, teams can develop their own suspensions and dampers.

IndyCar races take place on many tracks, including fast ovals and road courses. The length of the races also varies, with some, like the Indianapolis 500, lasting 500 laps and taking over three hours to complete. IndyCar races are known for their strategy of refuelling at pit stops. There are two cars per team, so the number of drivers can fluctuate from one race to the next.

IndyCar, which is primarily an American sport, does not enjoy the same amount of glamour and money as the F1 circuit.

Why should I care about F1?

F1 races might best be described as a sort of action-packed chess match that takes place while drivers are throttling around a track at close to 200 mph. To compete against the best motorsports minds, teams need to have both strategy and skill.

F1 also has strong personalities. The Netflix documentary series F1: Drive to Survive follows many of the teams and drivers over the course of a year and has helped raise the profile of the sport in the US. Season four of the series, which was released in March, focuses on last year’s championship race between Hamilton and Verstappen. The series also examines the internal struggles between drivers from the same team and gives viewers a glimpse into the stressful, pressure-filled world of elite racing.

Does F1 stream on ESPN Plus?

ESPN doesn’t air F1 coverage via its ESPN Plus streaming service. If you want to watch the practices or races you will need a television provider of some kind or to pay for F1’s $80 per season TV Pro subscription.

What time, where, and when are the races?

Races are held on Sunday and are usually spaced two weeks apart. Here’s the entire schedule, all times ET:

F1 2022-2023 Schedule

Date Race Time
March 20 Bahrain GP 11 a.m. ET
March 27 Saudi Arabian GP 1 p.m. ET
April 10 Australian GP 1 a.m. ET
April 24 Romagna GP 9 a.m. ET
May 8 Miami GP 3: 30 p.m. 3: p.m.
May 22 Spanish GP 9 a.m. ET
May 29 Monaco GP 9 a.m. ET
June 12 Azerbaijan GP 7 a.m. ET
June 19 Canadian GP 2 p.m. ET
July 3, British GP 10 a.m. ET
July 10 Austrian GP 9 a.m. ET
July 24 French GP 9 a.m. ET
July 31 Hungarian GP 9 a.m. ET
Aug. 28 Belgian GP 9 a.m. ET
Sept. 4 Dutch GP 9 a.m. ET
Sept. 11 Italian GP 9 a.m. ET
Oct. 2 Singapore GP 8 a.m. ET
Oct. 9 Japanese GP 1 a.m. ET
Oct. 23 United States GP 3 p.m. ET
Oct. 30 Mexican GP 4 p.m. ET
Nov. 13 Brazilian GP 1 p.m. ET
Nov. 20 Abu Dhabi GP 8 a.m. ET

Best options for streaming without cable

Race weekends normally start on Friday with multiple practice runs and continue on Saturday with qualifying. The race itself takes place on Sunday. The races are usually aired on ESPN, but practices and qualifying are typically aired on ESPN 2 and ESPNews. F1 events from North America are often aired on ABC. Here are the best ways to watch the entire race weekend live without cable.

You can watch the entire race weekend via a YouTube TV subscription. The package includes ESPN 2, ESPN 2 and ESPNews. This means that you will have access to all channels necessary to enjoy every second of the action.

Read our YouTube TV review.

Hulu plus Live TV is slightly more expensive than YouTube TV but offers all the channels that you need to see every race weekend. Hulu Plus Live TV is included in the Disney Bundle. This includes a subscriptions to Disney Plus and ESPN Plus. F1 races don’t air on ESPN Plus, but the service offers a ton of other content for die-hard sports fans.

Read our Hulu Plus Live TV review.

Sling TV’s $35 Orange plan might be a good choice for F1 fans who are primarily looking to just watch the races on Sundays. This plan offers the most affordable access to ESPN 2 and ESPN 3. Those looking for ESPNews will have to opt for the $11 Sports Extra ad-on. Sling TV does not have ABC. This could make it difficult for F1 fans to catch races in North America.

Read our Sling TV review.

FuboTV costs $70 per month and includes ABC, ESPN and ESPN 2. The base package lacks ESPNews, but you can add it for an extra $8 a month with the Fubo Extra Package or pay for the $80-a-month Elite streaming tier that includes Fubo Extra. Check out which local networks FuboTV offers here.

Read our FuboTV review.

DirecTV stream is the most expensive streaming service. Its cheapest, $70-a-month Plus package includes ESPN, ESPN 2 and ABC, but you’ll need to move up to the $90-a-month Choice plan to get ESPNews. You can use its channel lookup tool to see which local channels are available in your area.

Read our DirecTV Stream review.

F1 TV Pro is available for gearheads who want to see every angle of the action. F1 TV Pro costs $80 per season and gives fans access to all races from F1, F2, F3 and Porsche Supercup. Livestreaming every F1 Grand Prix track session will be possible. You also have access to all drivers onboard cameras, team radios, and all other driver onboard cameras. F1’s historical race archive will also be available.

F1 also offers a TV Access Plan for $27 per year, which only gives you on-demand access to races once they have been completed. You can still view all F1 cameras onboard, as well as replays of F1, F2, F3 or Porsche Supercup. It also contains the historical race archive.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Tech

Google Pixel 7 and 7 Pro are getting a built-in VPN at no extra cost

Published

on

By

Google Pixel 7 and 7 Pro are getting a built-in VPN at no extra cost
Google Pixel 7 Pro hands on front Snow



(Image credit: Future / Lance Ulanoff)

Users of the Google Pixel 7 and 7 Pro devices will be able to secure their data without the need to pay for an additional Android VPN after the company said it would be including its Google One VPN service at no extra cost. 

The move will make the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro the first smartphones to include a free VPN connection. 

The offer is restricted to just some countries, though – and what’s more, some data won’t be secured inside the VPN tunnel.  

Peace of mind when you connect online ✨Later this year, #Pixel7 and 7 Pro will be the only phones with a VPN by Google One—at no extra cost.¹#MadeByGoogle¹See image for more info pic.twitter.com/P7lzyoMdekOctober 6, 2022

See more

Google Pixel 7 VPN

Despite the aforementioned limits, the big tech giant assures that the VPN software won’t associate users’ app and browsing data with users’ accounts. 

Google One VPN typically costs around $10 per month as part of the company’s Premium One plan, which also comes with a 2TB of cloud storage on top. 

This decision is the latest move to bring Google’s mobile data security to the next level. Not too long ago, the company made Google One VPN available also for iOS devices, and also introduced the option of having an always-on VPN across its latest smartphones. 

Google promises that its secure VPN software will shield your phone against hackers on unsecure networks, like public Wi-Fi. It will also hide your IP address so that third parties won’t be able to track your location.

Shorter for virtual private network, a VPN is exactly the tool you want to shield your sensitive data as it masks your real location and encrypts all your data in transit. Beside privacy, it can allow you to bypass geo-restrictions and other online blocks. 

Chiara is a multimedia journalist, with a special eye for latest trends and issues in cybersecurity. She is a Staff Writer at Future with a focus on VPNs. She mainly writes news and features about data privacy, online censorship and digital rights for TechRadar, Tom’s Guide and T3. With a passion for digital storytelling in all its forms, she also loves photography, video making and podcasting. Originally from Milan in Italy, she is now based in Bristol, UK, since 2018.

Read More

Continue Reading

Tech

The Steam Deck dock is finally here and will ship faster than you think

Published

on

By

The Steam Deck dock is finally here and will ship faster than you think
a steam deck placed in a steam deck dock



(Image credit: Valve)

After months of waiting and delays, Valve has finally announced that the Steam Deck dock is available for purchase on its official site.

Not only that but, according to Valve, the dock will ship out in an incredibly fast one to two weeks, which pairs with the fact that the Steam Deck itself is now shipping with no wait time (not to mention that it’s incredibly easy to set up). The port selection is pretty solid as well, with the dock featuring three USB-A 3.1 gen 1 ports, one Ethernet port, a DisplayPort 1.4, and an HDMI 2.0 port. And for its power supply, it uses a USB-C passthrough delivery.

A Steam Deck dock will run you $90 (around £81 / AU$140), which is a bit steeper than most third-party options on the market right now. But for those waiting it out for an official product until now, price most likely will not be an issue.

Is it worth buying? 

Considering that even Steam Decks themselves are shipping without a queue and that the dock has such a quick turnaround to delivery, it seems that the supply chain issues that had been gripping Valve are loosening considerably.

However, the deck itself is far from perfect. Because of the fact that it uses USB-C for the display port, a third-party USB-C dock that uses its own power supply and video out will output the display of the official dock. 

And as mentioned before, the price of the official Steam Deck dock is steeper than many third-party options on the market, meaning that those who are on a budget might pass this product up in favor of a lower-priced one.

There are also some bugs that Valve is working on fixing at this time, including one involving compatibility with LG displays. According to the FAQ, if the “Docking Station is connected via HDMI, sleep/wake can result in visual noise.”

It might be worth waiting for Valve to work out the kinks of its dock before investing in one. And while you’re waiting, research other options that might better suit your needs.

Allisa has been freelancing at TechRadar for nine months before joining as a Computing Staff Writer. She mainly covers breaking news and rumors in the computing industry, and does reviews and featured articles for the site. In her spare time you can find her chatting it up on her two podcasts, Megaten Marathon and Combo Chain, as well as playing any JRPGs she can get her hands on.

Read More

Continue Reading

Tech

Why doesn’t Bash’s `set -e` do what I expected?

Published

on

By

Why doesn’t set -e (or set -o errexit, or trap ERR) do what I expected?

set -e was an attempt to add “automatic error detection” to the shell. Its goal was to cause the shell to abort any time an error occurred, so you don’t have to put || exit 1 after each important command. This does not work well in practice.

The goal of automatic error detection is a noble one, but it requires the ability to tell when an error actually occurred. In modern high-level languages, most tasks are performed by using the language’s builtin commands or features. The language knows whether (for example) you tried to divide by zero, or open a file that you can’t open, and so on. It can take action based on this knowledge.

But in the shell, most of the tasks you actually care about are done by external programs. The shell can’t tell whether an external program encountered something that it considers an error — and even if it could, it wouldn’t know whether the error is an important one, worthy of aborting the entire program, or whether it should carry on.

The only information conveyed to the shell by the external program is an exit status — by convention, 0 for success, and non-zero for “some kind of error”. The developers of the original Bourne shell decided that they would create a feature that would allow the shell to check the exit status of every command that it runs, and abort if one of them returns non-zero. Thus, set -e was born.

But many commands return non-zero even when there wasn’t an error. For example,

if [ -d /foo ]; then ...; else ...; fi

If the directory doesn’t exist, the [ command returns non-zero. Clearly we don’t want to abort when that happens — our script wants to handle that in the else part. So the shell implementors made a bunch of special rules, like “commands that are part of an if test are immune”, and “commands in a pipeline, other than the last one, are immune”.

These rules are extremely convoluted, and they still fail to catch even some remarkably simple cases. Even worse, the rules change from one Bash version to another, as Bash attempts to track the extremely slippery POSIX definition of this “feature”. When a SubShell is involved, it gets worse still — the behavior changes depending on whether Bash is invoked in POSIX mode. Another wiki has a page that covers this in more detail. Be sure to check the caveats.

A reference comparing behavior across various historical shells also exists.

Story time

Consider this allegory, originally posted to bug-bash:

Once upon a time, a man with a dirty lab coat and long, uncombed hair
showed up at the town police station, demanding to see the chief of
police.  "I've done it!" he exclaimed.  "I've built the perfect
criminal-catching robot!"

The police chief was skeptical, but decided that it might be worth
the time to see what the man had invented.  Also, he secretly thought,
it might be a somewhat unwise move to completely alienate the mad
scientist and his army of hunter robots.

So, the man explained to the police chief how his invention could tell
the difference between a criminal and law-abiding citizen using a
series of heuristics.  "It's especially good at spotting recently
escaped prisoners!" he said.  "Guaranteed non-lethal restraints!"

Frowning and increasingly skeptical, the police chief nevertheless
allowed the man to demonstrate one robot for a week.  They decided that
the robot should patrol around the jail.  Sure enough, there was a
jailbreak a few days later, and an inmate digging up through the
ground outside of the prison facility was grabbed by the robot and
carried back inside the prison.

The surprised police chief allowed the robot to patrol a wider area.
The next day, the chief received an angry call from the zookeeper.
It seems the robot had cut through the bars of one of the animal cages,
grabbed the animal, and delivered it to the prison.

The chief confronted the robot's inventor, who asked what animal it
was.  "A zebra," replied the police chief.  The man slapped his head and
exclaimed, "Curses!  It was fooled by the black and white stripes!
I shall have to recalibrate!"  And so the man set about rewriting the
robot's code.  Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped
inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs.  Then it should be
left alone.

The robot was redeployed with the updated code, and seemed to be
operating well enough for a few days.  Then on Saturday, a mob of
children in soccer clothing, followed by their parents, descended
on the police station.  After the chaos subsided, the chief was told
that the robot had absconded with the referee right in the middle of
a soccer game.

Scowling, the chief reported this to the scientist, who performed a
second calibration.  Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped
inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs OR had a whistle on
a necklace.

Despite the second calibration, the police chief declared that the robot
would no longer be allowed to operate in his town.  However, the news
of the robot had spread, and requests from many larger cities were
pouring in.  The inventor made dozens more robots, and shipped them off
to eager police stations around the nation.  Every time a robot grabbed
something that wasn't an escaped inmate, the scientist was consulted,
and the robot was recalibrated.

Unfortunately, the inventor was just one man, and he didn't have the
time or the resources to recalibrate EVERY robot whenever one of them
went awry.  The robot in Shangri-La was recalibrated not to grab a
grave-digger working on a cold winter night while wearing a ski mask,
and the robot in Xanadu was recalibrated not to capture a black and
white television set that showed a movie about a prison break, and so
on.  But the robot in Xanadu would still grab grave-diggers with ski
masks (which it turns out was not common due to Xanadu's warmer climate),
and the robot in Shangri-La was still a menace to old televisions (of
which there were very few, the people of Shangri-La being on the average
more wealthy than those of Xanadu).

So, after a few years, there were different revisions of the
criminal-catching robot in most of the major cities.  In some places,
a clever criminal could avoid capture by wearing a whistle on a string
around the neck.  In others, one would be well-advised not to wear orange
clothing in certain rural areas, no matter how close to the Harvest
Festival it was, unless one also wore the traditional black triangular
eye-paint of the Pumpkin King.

Many people thought, "This is lunacy!"  But others thought the robots
did more good than harm, all things considered, and so in some places
the robots are used, while in other places they are shunned.

The end.

Exercises

Or, “so you think set -e is OK, huh?”

Exercise 1: why doesn’t this example print anything?

   1 
   2 set -e
   3 i=0
   4 let i++
   5 echo "i is $i"

Exercise 2: why does this one sometimes appear to work? In which versions of bash does it work, and in which versions does it fail?

   1 
   2 set -e
   3 i=0
   4 ((i++))
   5 echo "i is $i"

Exercise 3: why aren’t these two scripts identical?

   1 
   2 set -e
   3 test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir
   4 echo survived
   1 
   2 set -e
   3 f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
   4 f
   5 echo survived

Exercise 4: why aren’t these two scripts identical?

   1 set -e
   2 f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
   3 f
   4 echo survived
   1 set -e
   2 f() { if test -d nosuchdir; then echo no dir; fi; }
   3 f
   4 echo survived

Exercise 5: under what conditions will this fail?

   1 set -e
   2 read -r foo < configfile

(Answers)

But wait, there’s more!

Even if you use expr(1) (which we do not recommend — use arithmetic expressions instead), you still run into the same problem:

   1 set -e
   2 foo=$(expr 1 - 1)
   3 
   4 echo survived

Subshells from command substitution unset set -e, however (unless inherit_errexit is set with Bash 4.4):

   1 set -e
   2 foo=$(expr 1 - 1; true)
   3 
   4 echo survived

Note that set -e is not unset for commands that are run asynchronously, for example with process substitution:

   1 set -e
   2 mapfile foo < <(true; echo foo)
   3 echo ${foo[-1]} 
   4 mapfile foo < <(false; echo foo)
   5 echo ${foo[-1]} 

Another pitfall associated with set -e occurs when you use commands that look like assignments but aren’t, such as export, declare, typeset or local.

   1 set -e
   2 f() { local var=$(somecommand that fails); }
   3 f    
   4 
   5 g() { local var; var=$(somecommand that fails); }
   6 g    

In function f, the exit status of somecommand is discarded. It won’t trigger the set -e because the exit status of local masks it (the assignment to the variable succeeds, so local returns status 0). In function g, the set -e is triggered because it uses a real assignment which returns the exit status of somecommand.

A particularly dangerous pitfall with set -e is combining functions with conditionals. The following snippets will not behave the same way:

   1 set -e
   2 f() { false; echo "This won't run, right?"; }
   3 f
   4 echo survived
   1 set -e
   2 f() { false; echo "This won't run, right?"; }
   3 if f; then  
   4     echo survived
   5 fi

As soon as a function is used as a conditional (in a list or with a conditional test or loop) set -e stops being applied within the function. This may not only cause code to unexpectedly start executing in the function but also change its return status!

Using Process substitution, the exit code is also discarded as it is not visible from the main script:

   1 set -e
   2 cat <(somecommand that fails)
   3 echo survived

Using a pipe makes no difference, as only the rightmost process is considered:

   1 set -e
   2 somecommand that fails | cat -
   3 echo survived

set -o pipefail is a workaround by returning the exit code of the first failed process:

   1 set -e -o pipefail
   2 failcmd1 | failcmd2 | cat -
   3 
   4 echo survived

though with pipefail in effect, code like this will sometimes cause an error, depending on whether the output of somecmd exceeds the size of the pipe buffer or not:

   1 set -e -o pipefail
   2 somecmd | head -n1
   3 
   4 echo survived

So-called strict mode

In the mid 2010s, some people decided that the combination of set -e, set -u and set -o pipefail should be used by default in all new shell scripts. They call this unofficial bash strict mode, and they claim that it “makes many classes of subtle bugs impossible” and that if you follow this policy, you will “spend much less time debugging, and also avoid having unexpected complications in production”.

As we’ve already seen in the exercises above, these claims are dubious at best. The behavior of set -e is quite unpredictable. If you choose to use it, you will have to be hyper-aware of all the false positives that can cause it to trigger, and work around them by “marking” every line that’s allowed to fail with something like ||true.

Conclusions

GreyCat‘s personal recommendation is simple: don’t use set -e. Add your own error checking instead.

rking’s personal recommendation is to go ahead and use set -e, but beware of possible gotchas. It has useful semantics, so to exclude it from the toolbox is to give into FUD.

geirha’s personal recommendation is to handle errors properly and not rely on the unreliable set -e.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 Xanatan