Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/9/25 5:14 PM, chrisv wrote:

-hh wrote:
 

No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:

 What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing. 

Just providing my perspective.

Today, they want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some "public health emergency" such as covid.  Or you've hit your "carbon limit".

And of course the same sources have also been shouting that they're going to take away your guns too ... for the past 40+ years.

If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
Its a simple principle & trade-off.

 The "trade off" is from leftists gutting our power generation capacity
for unreliable and inadequate "green" alternatives. 

Nope, has nothing really to do with the type of power source:  if one wants a high degree of power demand variance, it is infrastructure that needs to be built, and thus paid for.

If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
Its a simple principle & trade-off.

 I'm talking about bugs vs beef.

So?  Are you actually trying to suggest that beef is 100% safe and no one has ever died from it?  Sounds like you're really just being squeamish & emotionally triggered about foods which aren't culturally "normal" to you.  I'll have to post a short video clip I have of a plate of Japanese 'Octopus balls' that's visibly wiggling around.

Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".

 Golly, some people have a different point of view, a different point
to make, than others!

Nope, same poster.

 

(idiocy snipped)

 

Because it is more that you can't counter:
[quote]
cv> I agree.  There is no answer to the problems with mining.
Depends on what answer one is looking for:  a short term gratification of cheap energy, or more holistic perspective of addressing the costs of most of its actual externality costs too?  For example, a "clean up the mess you've caused" tax to pay for the damage that it is doing (and has done) would create the market incentive to reduce its externality costs, and shift the market to less bad alternatives...even if the tax money is never spent as it should be on actual clean-up.
[/quote]
Well?
[quote]
cv> There is no answer to the problems from being utterly dependant
cv> upon communist China for everything from minerals to the
cv> completed car or solar panel or wind turbine or power transformer.
True, the West has allowed short term capitalism to be the priority and outweigh strategic positioning, but there has been some leadership to allow some rebalancing.  For example, because of policy, domestic manufacturing capacity of solar cells has quadrupled since Biden took office.
<https://seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt/>
<https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/102224-us-solar-manufacturing-soars-but-gaps-and-uncertainty-persist>
[/quote]
Well?
[quote]
cv> The West takes a massive hit, while China laughs and builds
cv> a hundred coal plants every year.  They are happy to take
cv> our money and make everything for us, until we are as dependant
cv> and as weak as babies.
Yet we keep on buying stuff at WalMart, because we're unwilling to pay more for domestically produced.
Gosh, its almost as if there strategically needs to be Federal mandates which prevent us from being so dumb and avoid doing what we know is profoundly bad for us ... but there's folks who bitch it "takes away our freedoms":  one can't have your cake & eat it too.
[/quote]
Well?
Prediction: a very brave "(snipped, unread)" is immanent!
-hh