bluGill

joined 2 years ago
[–] bluGill@fedia.io -4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

The source is available but not in a form that will be accepted upstream. Often for good reason, but that doesn't do you any good.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io -3 points 1 month ago

Those are not exceptions.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

Don't trust it until lawyers have had months to examine the exact wording. Loopholes are to easy to hide. Often a other wise good bill will have something awful in it such that you must oppose the whole

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Only last year? I've been avoiding them for a long time. You can almost always find a "thing.com" store that sells just the thing I need and the blurb is written by someone independent who knows the subject and can tell me why or why not it is worth spending money on the more expensive version.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 14 points 1 month ago

See a qualified forester for the specific area. There are many different forests and they have different needs so no universal statement can be made.

Most of the forests in north America need regular fires and have been harmed by centuries of white men putting them out. However that means centuries of overgrowth and so starting one now is a too hot fire that isn't helpful either. The great plains need to burn yearly as well.

A proper fire should leave lots of charcoal behind that gets beat into the soil and naturally permanently sequesters tons of carbon. So this is a factor in global warming.

The problem is a few people have money for lawyers and anytime an expert proposes a fire they get a judge to issue an injunction and stop it until it is too late to safely burn. I'm not sure what to do about this but it is something to oppose.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Which is why I'm careful. That is why I always reject the "no payments or interest for 6 months" offers stores sometimes have - I "know" they won't remind me to pay it off in 6 months and then I'm paying more.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

A nail is common enough that I refuse that objection.

Barrels are 3d printed. They are single use because the heat and pressure will destroy them, but they work. They also can't get good rifling patterns so not accurate. This is why a 3D printed gun is always going to be a novelty that is useless, but it is enough to work.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

People have 3d printed guns and fired them. They work. Not well, and last I heard they are one shot because plastic can take the heat. Still they do exist.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Basic hand tools can make a ak47. Skill is needed there though.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm not quite understanding your question.

3d printers have made guns. They are always bad guns because plastic isn't great for the purpose. They work and prove the point enough to scare people who know nothing about guns and thus don't realize why other methods are better and faster.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

CNC lathes are very common these days.

view more: ‹ prev next ›