Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>

Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...

>
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>
Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>
Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.

>
There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.

>
   Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
   the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
   just too different for a good fit.

 Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is similarity.
 

   Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
   he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
   all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
   and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
   somewhere to the middle.
>
   With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
   he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
   put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
   is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
   Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
   expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
   is 'good enough'.

 Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much everywhere else.

   The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
   Used to have more during the Cold War.
   Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
   a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
   found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
   imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
   apart.
   Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
   that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
   out the side of the ice.
   There are a number of micro-settlements all around
   the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
   or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
   My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
   see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
   Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
   by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
   drive on top of.