As much as you possibly can. Remember that in a neoliberal utopia, each week you’d bring tens of thousands of dollars in for a company, be compensated with minimum wage and then hand those wages straight back to the nearest billionaire in exchange for food and shelter. If you have any money left at the end of the week, that’s abhorrent to them.

Yep, lower capacity than cars half its size but a higher towing capacity that you’re not actually using.

Oh look, the goalposts have moved again and apparently outside the US, people in giant trucks have xray vision that let’s them see through solid metal.

I’m not engaging any further. You’re a fucking idiot, driving around in a fucking idiot’s car, and you’ve already done more than I ever could to prove it.

I can’t believe I missed this photo of your “over capacity” truck carrying less than the rated capacity of the cars you insisted were too small and a photo of what looks like loose pine needles.

I’ve literally never had an issue and I’ve never heard of that being an issue

Well fuck me dead, that’s a shocking plot twist. The guy who responds to every comment with “spoonfeed me this widely available information” hasn’t heard of something.

Do you not look at the road when you’re driving or something?

It’s basic geometry, which was apparently too much to ask of you. Maybe we should have started at “object permanence” and established that things continue existing, even when your vision of them is blocked.

Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?

Most people probably just assumed you were aware of this extremely common knowledge and that if you weren’t, you were capable of being a big brave boy and typing “pickup truck blind spot” into a search engine by yourself.

But nope, you’d rather accidentally admit that you don’t know basic safety information about your own car.

They’re not pulled from your ass because they’re wrong, they’re pulled from your ass because you only decided they were important after your “it’s not possible” didn’t hold up.

And why would towing and capacity not be part of the conversation…? They are literally the two most important factors when deciding on trucks.

Towing and capacity only matter if you actually use them and the majority of truck owners clearly don’t. You can’t justify the environmental and social cost of giant trucks by claiming “It can tow 10,000kg” and then never tow anything. An ebike is capable of towing “nothing”.

So don’t be coy. Show us a picture of your truck towing 10,000kg. Show us your neighbors truck towing 10,000kg. It’s why you needed them and why you couldn’t possibly drive a smaller car.

Why does everyone deflect from the actual reasons people buy trucks and perpetuate this stupid “bed size is what matters? People who use trucks know this how car people talk about trucks…… because that’s literally not a concern for people who use trucks… you’re literally showing your bias and lack of education lmfao

If you’re going to try and insult someone’s education, try not to precede it with a paragraph of barely coherent word salad. “People who use trucks know this how car people talk about trucks”?

Provide us with a photo of your truck at capacity.

Let’s be honest, the bed size doesn’t matter either since the majority of the trucks you see on the road are carrying nothing more than a LARPing driver – that’s why they keep making them smaller and smaller.

But the numbers you pulled out of your ass weren’t part of the criteria when you told us all it “wasn’t possible”.

Also, I absolutely adore the salty little down votes you give anyone who replies to your comment without agreeing with you, even when you demand a reply. It’s like something a grumpy toddler would do.

The other way a giant truck can solve your “driving my kids around” problem is via the massive blind spot in front. If you’re impressed how much you can fit in the back, wait until you see how many tiny little skulls fit between the road and your line of sight.

I’m not the person you were talking to but I’m happy to spoon feed you an answer since it was so trivially easy to find: Behold, a normal sized car with a large carrying capacity and a good safety rating.

Sounds like cunt behavior to me.

And if people were buying massive trucks for their unmatched safety, that would be a point worth making. Unfortunately, there’s thousands of cars on the market that are safer than both those options (for both the occupants and the people around them) and some of them can fit just as much in the back.

There is no justification for these trucks. Not safety, not cost, not the environment, not accessibility and not the amount of stuff they can theoretically carry.

The only excuse is “I’m a massive cunt” and people are absolutely right to not accept it.

Because it’s made by volunteers, in their free time, who either don’t have the time or skill or goal to make it competitive

Didn’t stop Blender. Didn’t stop Firefox. Didn’t stop Linux itself.

If someone is not able or willing to learn their way around something new, that’s literally their problem

I’ve already covered in this comment chain. Krita and Affinity Photo do things differently and nobody complains because they can see actual value in the change. Being “different” isn’t the source of GIMPs reputation, being shit is.

Why would it need to be similar? If you want Photoshop, well then use Photoshop.

I moved to Affinity Photo over a year ago, despite it being different. I don’t even keep a token pirated version of Photoshop around for compatibility anymore.

Sometimes doing something different might also end up being the better idea. Won’t know until you tried.

I tried multiple times and it simply isn’t. That’s been their most common feedback for 20 years but people like you still refuse to acknowledge that people might have a point.

And yes, good software is good code. That’s just a fact.

Yet somehow, no matter how good the code might be, ugly software with shit UX just never seems to gain widespread popularity. Don’t worry, I’m sure it’s not because “good software” is holistic, it’s because the entire world is wrong about GIMP except for you.

It is the next best completely free alternative.

And if that was how people actually presented it, I wouldn’t be objecting. Instead, people pretend it’s as good as Photoshop and anyone who disagrees is blamed for not programming it themselves and attacked for suggesting that commercial tools are far better.

How is that an argument? How do you get the idea that GIMP is basically required to be competitive, just because it’s old?

Looks like you’re more interested in defending Linux software than actually seeing my point.

So why isn’t it competitive? It’s not because it’s new and hasn’t had time to mature. It’s not because developers haven’t put time into it (despite the ridiculous “fix it yourself” bullshit that people keep pushing). It’s not because the problem it aimed to solve has been solved.

It’s because the people involved with GIMP have the usual Linux community resentment about what “good software” actually is. It’s fuck ugly, but they don’t think that should matter, so it doesn’t get addressed. It doesn’t follow patterns that similar software follows, because they’re used to it, so everyone else should be too.

It’s the same pervasive “good software is good code and nothing else” mentality the plagues the OSS community.

But who cares? Use your shit software. Defend it to your dying breath. It’s not going to fix systemic problems with the project nor fool anyone who actually tries it.

Nobody is acting shocked. Least the people who learned to use GIMP.

So the people who learn GIMP are fully aware why it gets zero industry use? Thanks, that was my point.

The problem is people like you who are outraged, when asking for a free Photoshop alternative, that the next best thing is not to their likening.

I’m not outraged in the slightest, nor am I asking for a free Photoshop alternative. But I’ve seen people claiming GIMP is a viable alternative to Photoshop for 20 years and for anything past the most basic use cases, it isn’t. You may as well be telling people to use Nano instead of Visual Studio and when they complain about the experience, tell them to code the features themselves.

GIMP has had literally decades of development and even with Photoshop in the worst state it’s ever been in, it isn’t competitive. There are clearly systemic issues with the project and I’m certain this “head in the sand” mentality is at least partly to blame.

No, but “fix it yourself” is apparently a completely acceptable response if someone criticizes GIMP.

Anyway, I don’t care how bad the tools you use are, but it’s time to stop acting shocked when industry professionals have no interest in GIMP and don’t take anyone who advocates it as a Photoshop alternative seriously.

Have you thought about applying for a job at Adobe and fixing it?

GIMP is bad. If the problem was simply that it was “different to PS” then other apps like Krita and Affinity Photo would have the same reputation.

If a user goes looking for a tool or feature and it’s not in the first place they look, that’s a problem of “didn’t really practice that much”. If experienced people need to look up how to do basic operations and their reaction is “that’s fucking stupid”, then the software is bad.

To then say “well why don’t you help the Dev team then” is insane. I’m not spending hundreds of hours digging GIMP out of bad design decisions when I could just use better software and I haven’t seen any evidence that my PR would even be accepted.

Nobody needs excuses and apologism, they need Blender for image editing and GIMP just isn’t that.

Charismatic, intelligent people don’t need fascism nearly as much as dumbfucks do but even for the few who get sucked in anyway, there’s easier and more self-serving ways to express it than a grueling, always-on position in the Republican party.

But ultimately the answer to both “why don’t they run someone actually good” questions is “because it would be a threat to neoliberals and their record profits”.