Hi there!

  • 0 Posts
  • 262 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle



  • I don’t think people are “refusing”, it’s not like it’s mandatory or anything. Nobody’s trying to force you to drive a car.

    I know I’ll never be able to afford a car, they’re incredibly expensive to buy and operate, and most of my travel is already covered by our excellent Trams, Buses and Trains, which can get me basically anywhere comfortably and quickly.

    For the times I need something special I can ask someone for a lift, but that happens only a handful of times a year. A car would be a big, expensive, risky piece of equipment to just leave sat around for someone to steal…


  • Obinice@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldtoxic help forum
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It looks like this was asked in a GIMP forum, […] It’s super rude to ask that in that forum.

    Why? Just because you’re using a forum for a piece of software, presumably because you want to receive or offer help on using the software for the most part, doesn’t mean you’re obsessed with it and hate all other alternatives that exist.

    It’s software, not a religion. These people need some perspective.

    Imagine being in a community where being asked about alternatives is considered extremely rude. What a weird group of cult-like obsessives that would be. Creepy o.O

    Also regarding why one would ask GIMP users about alternatives, theoretically these would be the best people to ask for GIMP alternatives. They presumably know the software well, and have probably tried alternatives (because they’re not obsessive weirdos that worship a single brand image their whole lives), and can give good answers on what alternatives exist and how they compare to GIMP in its current feature set.

    They may even actively use multiple softwares on a regular basis. There’s no law against using GIMP and one or two similar pieces of software that perhaps have slightly different features or are better at one thing vs another.

    It’s not rude to put a reasonable question about a piece of software and how it exists in the ecosystem to a group that knows a lot about that software. It isn’t a sacred holy cult object of worship. It’s just a program.


  • There’s very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.

    Agreed, it’s very rare, guns are absolutely one of those things though. They’re the perfect evolution of the personal handheld killing tool. You just point it at the thing you want dead, push the button, and you’ve got a good chance of deadding it immediately with your first try.

    Guns don’t have a secondary use, like how a knife can whittle a tree branch into a nice spoon, or cut some thread, or skin an animal. Guns cause massive damage to whatever they are pointed at, and sometimes to the things around that thing too, if you’re particularly unlucky.

    They’re the solution to a problem when you need the solution to be “escalate this situation to 1000% and start killing stuff”.

    Gun manufacturers who say they’re made for defence and not killing must be delusional or confused about what their products do, or just lying to their potential customers for… who even knows what reason.

    They are made to defend yourself by killing the person you need to be defended from. Pure and simple. They are truly as cut and dry a tool for killing things as there is.

    Nobody is out there shooting people defensively with some non-lethal mode built in to their high speed projectile metal lumps that tear through the human body, causing parts of it to explode and massive trauma to the surrounding tissues and organs.

    Do guns exist that fire beanbags, or tranquilliser darts, or such? Absolutely, but none of us here are talking about those types of more specialist guns. We’re talking about your standard gun, the kind they sell to lots of civilians in countries like the USA.










  • There’s almost no way bare metal gives the same traction as rubber tyres do. They say it does, but I’d need some really solid data to back that up, for all conditions that the average car will face, not just lab controlled perfect conditions. Tarmac, dirt, snow, rain, heat, cold, etc.

    Also one thing I don’t see mentioned is noise pollution. As cars go electric, more and more so the main source of noise from cars becomes their tyres. It’s weird but true. Think of a motorway and how loud the sound of all those tyres rolling is. These would have to be quieter than rubber tyres to be viable.

    Also there’s no mention of cost or metal fatigue/wear. Rubber tyres are likely much cheaper to produce - even accounting for economies of scale, they use far less exotic materials.

    And I’d be curious how long these tyres last vs traditional tyres through use and wear, how their characteristics such as traction change over time, how they handle hitting debris on the road, be it bits of rocks or whatever. The things cars contend with here and there regularly.

    So, while this technology is potentially very promising in a hybrid tyre (like the bicycle tyre shown in the article, Vs the full-metal tyre shown), I have my doubts that need quelling before I see it going anywhere in its full metal state for general use. Specialised, maybe.

    I’d love to find something that can replace rubber, and importantly be quieter, and maybe this avenue of research can lead to some great results. I just have my doubts that we’re there yet.


  • Hong Kong lost it’s fight for survival with China. It’s China now, every day a little bit more.

    The largest and longest lasting protests in history accomplished nothing, because the people they were protesting against couldn’t care less about protests.

    Unfortunately the only thing that could have saved them was true action, and the time for that has long, long since passed.

    R.I.P Hong Kong, you were an amazing place <3