Latest news with #RedBull
New York Post
5 hours ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Tattoo artist roasted for ‘demon-like' image of client's baby: ‘I'm sorry you lost your dog bro'
Terrible tattoos are timeless, but as of late, it seems like more and more inked-up individuals are taking to the Internet to share their strange, questionable and sometimes even trashy tattoos. Between Gen-Z's recent revival of the tramp stamp and a Swiss woman's viral $600 Red Bull barcode tattoo, social media users seem to agree that they could go a while without seeing another mega-viral miss in the tattoo department. Unfortunately for the aforementioned members of the public, Cairo-based tattoo artist Thomas Tattoos proved to be the latest object of ink-based ridicule after he posted a video to his Instagram account, @ink_by_thomas, presenting his latest piece. The piece was presumably intended to be a portrait of the client's daughter, but commenters saw more resemblance between the final product and Gollum from 'The Lord of the Rings' — a demon and the fictitious ogre, Shrek, were also popular comparisons. Evidently, the visually offensive tattoo struck a nerve with social media users who stumbled across the video, which now has over 31 million views and thousands of comments — and shockingly, they're practically all negative. 'What days are you closed?' asked one commenter, while another like-minded inquired: 'Ayoo, do you accept walkouts?' 'Your wife must have a tattoo removal business…. I see what you're doing now,' replied a commenter under another video on the artist's page. Some users speculated that maybe, just maybe, the tattoo wasn't that bad, and the baby just happened to be… unpleasant looking. 'Prayers for the baby if it looks like that,' offered one sympathetic scroller. 'Well, it's not nice to say… But not all kids are pretty and cute,' said another. Meanwhile, another slightly more suspicious individual said, 'I gotta see the reference picture.' Ask and you shall receive, apparently. Shortly after comments like this rolled in, Thomas Tattoos shared a post of the original stencil design side-by-side with the finished piece. 'I don't have an appointment, but I would like to cancel anyway,' replied one aggrieved commenter after seeing the stencil. Instagram / @ink_by_thomas Unfortunately for Thomas Tattoos, commenters found the tattoo even more outrageous after seeing the original portrait of the baby, Tallin. 'Bro doesn't have customers, he has victims,' joked one reply. 'You sell vouchers?' asked one malicious user, 'My ex is gonna get one for a big piece.' As many commenters noted, typically, tattooists specialize in one or at most, a few art styles. Judging from other content on the artist's page, he does everything from traditional to fine line to portraits to geometric cyber sigilism tattoos. Despite the firestorm of fury on behalf of the customer that followed the viral video, Thomas Tattoos doesn't seem to have taken the commenters' negativity to heart. The ink master is still keeping followers and haters alike up to date on all of his latest work on his Instagram account, and shows no signs of slowing down — he's even done another baby portrait!
IOL News
7 hours ago
- Automotive
- IOL News
Four F1 world titles later, Max Verstappen is still a ‘purist' racer
Max Verstappen's unhappiness at Red Bull has not been a secret. Photo: AFP Image: AFP Comment by Jehran Naidoo Say what you want about Max Verstappen – cocky, arrogant and sometimes overly aggressive, but you cannot deny that the four-time world champion has a hunger unparalleled to most of his competitors. It's mid-season and the paddock took a bit of a break to help the mothership market its new movie 'F1', starring Brad Pitt and Damson Idris. There was a fancy display of the grid in New York and most of the drivers showed up wearing their Sunday best. Hamilton won the best dressed award, as usual… Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ But Verstappen opted to head home to spend some time with Lily and test out a GT3 spec Aston Martin at one of motorsports greatest tracks – Spa. He was not the only one to sit the premier out, as Mercedes driver Kimi Antonelli had to head back to Italy to write his exams – clearly another hungry driver – just hungry for his education at this point. Oscar Piastri, Fernando Alonso and Lance Stroll also sat out the premier due to their own personal reasons while Verstappen laid down some times in the Aston Martin. Going under the alias 'Franz Hermann' when he's out racing GT3 cars, Verstappen could either just be training to become a better F1 driver or getting ready to make a pivot into a new career path. His unhappiness at Red Bull has not been a secret, amid car development challenges and key staff members, like designer Adrian Newey, leaving the Milton Keynes outfit. The Dutch-Belgian driver has also devoted a bit more time to his family since the birth of his new daughter, and could also explain his absence from the premier. But he did not miss the opportunity to prepare for the upcoming Austrian Grand Prix. The 2025 season, which marks a decade in F1 for Verstappen, has had its ups and downs – but most of it was spent chasing the tail end of papaya lightning. His win in Japan showed a level of driving that even shocked his own team, who knew the RB21 stood no chance against both McLarens. Then again at Imola, Verstappen pulled off not only a win, but a sizable lead ahead of Oscar Piastri in the McLaren, a bit of a flex to show off the new money Red Bull had dumped into the RB21's development post Newey. The paddock will pack up in New York and unload at the Red Bull ring in Austria next weekend, and Verstappen will have a chance to claim another victory in his home turf and add some much needed points toward his fifth title shot. Equalling Schumacher's record of five straight world titles is a feat still very much possible at this stage, especially with McLaren losing a bit of concentration in recent weeks. But he will have to deal with a determined George Russell and another hungry future champion in Antonelli. The Italian teenager has given Mercedes a fighting chance for the Constructors title this year, enough to rival the prowess of McLaren. Red Bull, on the other hand, can only put all their eggs in Verstappen's basket at this point – as the 'cursed' second seat bears no fruit for Christian Horner, who does not remember what a Constructors title tastes like. But many have speculated that Verstappen will call it quits after this season, and cannot invest his career into Red Bull's hopes and dreams in F1. He has stated that his interest in GT3 racing is real, and is also known to be a sim-racing expert – competing in 24-hour events online as well.
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
How KL Rahul, Ben Stokes warmed up with Extreme Cricket challenge: Batting on moving truck & floating barge, striking targets stuck on rickshaw tops
Weeks before KL Rahul and Ben Stokes face off in the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy, the two batting talents went head to head in a spot of Extreme Cricket. The India-England was still a month away, when Rahul and Stokes undertook a Red Bull Extreme cricket challenge that included range-hitting from a moving truck and precision striking on targets batting on a floating barge on a Mumbai lake. The defensive abilities of both the key members of their respective sides were also tested against bowling machines, which they both named Bumrah for the variety in exploring onto the stumps. Moving targets suspended from drones and mounted on auto rickshaws (tum tuk for Stokes), completed the extreme batting challenge. The first challenge saw Rahul batting on a glacially moving open trailer to complete an aggregate 500 metres in a limited number of chances on an empty road stretch. His maximum travelled 110 metre. Stokes's equivalent was batting from a floating barge with 6 buoys rings signalling target zones to land ball into. He managed a few as Naser Hussain provided animated commentary. The second challenge had 4 temporary rooms constructed with balls spitting out bowling machines. Rahul's challenge was to guess 'where' from of the 4 slots the ball would emerge from, while Stokes' needed to wait and bide his time for a 'when', as the delivery suddenly fetched up. In Room 3, Rahul was up against a pitch made of different zones – Wood plank (dead bounce), dust Bowl (slow and low), chaos mat (entirely unpredictable) and marble slab (fast kick bounce). The goal was to not get Out. While Stokes' had to bat with operatic shrieking music blared into his ear. On the final challenge, the two took turns on an open field hitting long aiming at auto rickshaw mounted bullseye targets. One tuk tuk driver had his glass broken by Stokes and wasn't particularly happy. A while later, a drone carried a giant target hovering over the field and moving about. The India-England Test with Stokes as captain and KL Rahul as batting lynchpin starts on Friday at Headingley Leeds.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
Red Bull's Canadian GP protest should spark F1 reform
Red Bull's decision to appeal the result of the Canadian Grand Prix drew widespread criticism, with Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff branding it 'petty' and 'embarrassing.' The ensuing delay in confirming the race result drew negative reactions from both fans and the media alike. It took more than five and a half hours for George Russell's victory to be officially confirmed by the FIA, after he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the stewards. Advertisement By that point, Max Verstappen had already left Canadian airspace – choosing not to wait and see if he might inherit the win from the Brit. Red Bull's protest centred on claims that Russell had driven 'erratically' behind the safety car and that his heavy braking amounted to 'unsportsmanlike behaviour.' Both arguments were dismissed by the stewards. However, it was the delay in reaching that decision that was the main problem, and also raises questions about the process of protesting a race result. Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing Wolff criticised the timing of the protest, telling Sky Sports at the New York premiere of the F1 movie: 'It was two hours before [Red Bull] launched the protest, so that was their doing. It's so petty and so small. They come up with some weird clauses – what they call clauses. I guess the FIA needs to look at that because it was so far-fetched, it got rejected.' Advertisement Unsurprisingly, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner defended the protest. Speaking to the same outlet, he said: 'It's a team's right to do so. You have the ability to put it in front of the stewards, and that's what we chose to do. Absolutely no regrets.' Who is at Fault? Teams are entitled to protest the outcome of a race if they believe a sporting regulation has been violated or that new evidence was missed by the stewards. Horner revealed that the appeal cost €2,000 (£1,700) and admitted he was surprised Russell's driving wasn't flagged by the stewards initially. This also wasn't Red Bull's first protest of the season. During May's Miami Grand Prix, Russell – who once again finished ahead of Verstappen – was accused of failing to slow under yellow flags. Red Bull were making a point and felt Russell had not slowed sufficiently, with Horner saying they were simply seeking clarity of the regulations. Advertisement That claim, too, was dismissed. Christian Horner, Red Bull Racing Christian Horner, Red Bull Racing While there's no suggestion that Red Bull is deliberately targeting Russell, who has had a series of tense exchanges with Verstappen in recent years, the repeated protests do raise questions about the current appeal process in general. The €2,000 cost of filing a protest is not a deterrent, should a team wish to make a point or seek clarification over a regulation. After all, there are other mechanisms for this to be raised that would not delay the outcome of a race result. But if that fee were increased and counted toward the cost cap – it could discourage teams from lodging speculative appeals without solid evidence. Advertisement A higher financial burden would likely ensure only well-founded protests are brought forward, potentially speeding up the process for the stewards and avoiding unnecessary delays. A problem of resources In the case of Canada, the situation was further complicated by the sheer volume of post-race investigations. According to the rules, incidents are reviewed in the order they are reported. Red Bull's protest, submitted two hours after the chequered flag, was placed last in the queue. Esteban Ocon, Haas F1 Team, Carlos Sainz, Williams, Gabriel Bortoleto, Sauber Esteban Ocon, Haas F1 Team, Carlos Sainz, Williams, Gabriel Bortoleto, Sauber Before reaching Russell's case, the stewards had to examine incidents involving Ollie Bearman, Lando Norris, and Esteban Ocon – followed by seven separate alleged infringements of the safety car procedure. Advertisement It was a frustrating experience for everyone. Fans at the circuit left without clarity, while many in Europe went to bed not knowing who had actually won the race. It was not a good look for a sport that is trying to grow its appeal around the world. Maybe there is scope for race stewards to delegate, meaning that the Remote Operations Centre in Geneva could cycle through the lesser offences using all the technology at its disposal. That would free up those stewards at the track to oversee Red Bull's protest and ultimately result in quicker decision-making. Another possibility would be to increase the number of stewards, something the FIA is already working on as it looks to increase its pool of qualified race officials. Interestingly, in Canada, officials at the race had more resources at their disposal as the FIA had four stewards adjudicating the race rather than the usual three. The increase in stewards is being trialled at six raced this year, including at Singapore and Brazil later this season. Advertisement Read Also: Christian Horner defends Red Bull Canadian GP protest: "Absolutely no regrets" Toto Wolff: Red Bull's Canadian GP protest was "so petty and so small" Whatever the solution, it is important that the lengthy delay in confirming the race result is addressed as a matter of urgency, for it would be bad news for everyone if this became common place. To read more articles visit our website.
Fast Company
10 hours ago
- Automotive
- Fast Company
Is that brand's mission for real? Here's how to spot BS
In today's marketplace, 'authenticity' has become a buzzword that brands strive to embody. Consumers will tell you they are drawn to companies that appear genuine, transparent, and aligned with their personal values, and brands are certainly paying attention. However, the concept of corporate authenticity is complex and often misunderstood. While it seems easy enough to decide whether a person is authentic and honest (which does not imply we are good at it), it is rather more difficult to attempt to judge a corporation on whether it is 'true to itself' or 'lives up to its values.' Unlike individuals, corporations are open systems with diverse stakeholders, making the pursuit of authenticity a challenging endeavor. The impression or view a collective of individuals may hold on them represents less in the form of a tangible or concrete reality, and more in the form of an urban legend or story. As Yuval Harari notes, corporations are shared myths—'Peugeot is not a car, it is a story.' In line, research shows that we often anthropomorphize brands, attributing human characteristics to them. This tendency is encapsulated in Jennifer Aaker's seminal work on brand personality, which identifies five dimensions: sincerity (think Patagonia, known for its environmental activism and ethical sourcing), excitement (Red Bull, with its adrenaline-fueled branding and extreme sports sponsorships), competence (Toyota or Microsoft, projecting reliability and expertise), sophistication (Chanel or Rolex, evoking elegance and luxury), and ruggedness (Jeep or Harley-Davidson, built around toughness and adventure). These categories help marketers craft emotionally resonant narratives, but they can also mislead—creating the illusion of consistent, humanlike traits in organizations that are, in reality, anything but unified or coherent. The Pitfalls of Virtue Signaling Indeed, assigning brands personalities also sets them up for moral scrutiny. Once a company claims to be sincere, competent, or sophisticated, it invites consumers to hold it accountable—not just for performance, but for being honest in what it claims, and doing what it says. That's where things often fall apart. Take the example of punk beer brand BrewDog. In 2022, the company launched an aggressive advertising campaign to distance its beers from the human rights abuses associated with the World Cup, even promising to donate sales of its Lost Lager to fight human rights abuses. But the story became more inconvenient when it emerged the company had a partnership with a distributor in the Gulf, and would continue to show World Cup matches in its pubs. As it turned out, the road from punk rebel to self-serving hypocrite turned out to be rather short. On the other hand, Target's recent decision to double-down on its commitment to DEI despite the growing list of multinationals (including Meta, McDonald's, Ford, Walmart, Amazon, Harley-Davidson, and Disney) deemphasizing or halting their existing DEI programs, appeared to trigger a consumer backlash (at least according to its CEO). Then there's H&M, which promoted a 'Conscious Collection' to highlight its commitment to sustainability, only for watchdogs and NGOs to uncover greenwashing practices and ongoing exploitative labor issues in its supply chain. While consumer perceptions of insincerity may not always be fair or reliable (and there will never be a shortage of social media trolls praying on any corporate decision, including the decision to not say or do anything about anything), the fact remains that if you make a claim to be responsible or ethical, it is only a matter of time before consumers start looking under the hood to see whether your actions—and your political spending—are aligned with what your firm says it cares about. In the digital age, where every claim can be fact-checked and memed within minutes, performative values are not just ineffective—they're often self-handicapping. Is This Brand for Real? A Consumer's Guide to Authenticity If you're wondering whether a brand's values are more than just marketing spin, here are a few practical ways to find out: 1. Is the cause connected to what they actually do? Brands are most credible when they support issues tied to their core business— like a bank promoting financial literacy, or a food company addressing supply chain working conditions. If the cause feels random or like it's chasing headlines, that's worth questioning. 2. Is the message matched by meaningful action? Look beyond the ads. Are they investing in real change, or asking you to do all the work? If a brand promotes sustainability but spends more on ads than action—or emphasizes consumer behavior over their own—it might be more about optics than impact. 3. Are there big gaps between claims and criticism? Compare what a brand says with how it's covered in the press or watchdog reports. If they're celebrating progress on diversity or climate, but facing lawsuits or fines in the same areas, that's a red flag. No brand is perfect, but consistency matters. 4. Who owns the topic inside the company? Real commitment goes beyond marketing. If sustainability or DEI is led by senior leadership and tied to company performance, that suggests seriousness. If it's buried under PR, it may be more about image than impact. 5. Are they transparent about what's not working? No company gets it right all the time. But the best ones admit mistakes, revise targets, and explain why. Honesty is often more powerful than perfection—and it's a key sign that the values are real, not just rehearsed. 6. Do they walk the talk politically? Some brands say one thing in public and back different things behind closed doors. If you care, tools like let you see whether a company's donations and lobbying match their stated values. The Role of Leadership Brand authenticity must be cultivated from the top down. Leaders set the tone for organizational culture and values. When executives embody the principles they espouse, it reinforces authenticity throughout the organization. Conversely, a disconnect between leadership behavior and corporate messaging can undermine credibility. That said, we should also acknowledge a sobering truth: we will never truly know whether a leader is 'authentic' in the sense of being true to their internal values. Self-knowledge is hard enough for individuals —let alone for those interpreting others from a distance. But, as one of us (Tomas) argues in a forthcoming book, Don't Be Yourself: Why Authenticity is Overrated and What to Do Instead, that kind of inner authenticity may not be what matters most anyway. What matters is whether leadership behavior—regardless of motive—results in positive, prosocial outcomes. Are decisions advancing the well-being of employees, customers, society, or the environment? If so, perhaps we shouldn't care whether the driver is conscience or capitalism. To put it bluntly: we don't need leaders to be saints—we need them to behave decently, even if they're doing it to protect the brand, preserve investor confidence, or attract talent. In fact, many of the best corporate decisions are made precisely because they're strategically ethical —not because the CEO had a moral epiphany during their morning meditation. Sure, there are rare and admirable cases where executives have chosen the harder, more ethical path even when it hurts profits (Target, as mentioned above)—pulling out of exploitative markets, paying fair wages despite pressure to cut costs, or refusing to greenwash in favor of slower, more meaningful change. But those leaders are exceptions. We should appreciate them, not expect them as standard. Disregard of decency Still, even in a world where profit is king, some companies stand out not for their lack of idealism, but for their flagrant disregard of decency. These are the firms that exploit labor, abuse data privacy, pollute freely, or thrive on addictive products—not incidentally, but as a matter of business model. Whether or not their leaders are being 'true to themselves' is beside the point. What matters is that they're consistently making the world worse—authentically or otherwise. In this light, corporate authenticity should be judged not by introspection but by impact. Not by consistency with internal values (which are often opaque), but by observable behaviors, externalities, and the lived experiences of stakeholders. Or to put it differently: if your 'authentic self' is toxic, exploitative, or unethical— we'd rather you fake it. And here's the punchline. The most responsible organizations today are often the ones that don't fetishize authenticity, but instead institutionalize accountability. They build feedback loops, audit their culture, measure ethical risks, and reward good behavior even when it's not performative. In other words, they focus less on being 'real' and more on doing right—whatever the motive may be. Pretend Responsibly: Why Corporate Authenticity Is About Impact, Not Essence Kurt Vonnegut famously noted that 'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.' The same warning applies to companies. In today's hyper-transparent, hyper-skeptical world, brands are in a constant state of performance—telling stories, signaling values, curating identities. But here's the rub: those performances shape reality. The way a company chooses to present itself—sincere or performative, strategic or self-expressive—will influence how it treats people, how it allocates resources, and how it responds when the spotlight moves on. So yes, corporations must be careful what they pretend to be. Because the story becomes the strategy. The persona becomes policy. And even if the motive is opportunistic, the consequences are real. Corporate authenticity is not about soul-searching or storytelling—it's about alignment and accountability. If a company's public commitments match its operational decisions, if it treats people decently even when no one's watching, if it chooses to mitigate harm instead of maximizing plausible deniability—then it's doing something right, regardless of how 'authentic' it feels. To be sure, it is preferable to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right reasons! In short: don't ask whether a company is 'being itself.' Ask what kind of self it's choosing to perform—and whether that performance is making anyone's life better. In the end, the best brands aren't the ones that feel most authentic. They're the ones that behave responsibly, or at least manage to mitigate, if not avoid, bad behaviors relative to others.
