partial_accumen

Sounds like Elgin go their cameras taken down so that college’s problem is solved. If the cameras were still up I can think if a few things the college could do. The college has a welding instruction department. I can think of no better coursework than constructing steel welded boxes the wrap around cameras. That would have prevented the flock workers from taking the bags off.

Alternatively, the school could have erected signage directly in front of the cameras obscuring the view, and if the flock workers moved the signs they could criminally charge them vandalism and sue the Flock for paying for it to happen.

I’m glad you were able to confirm the situation. Thanks for following up and satisfying my curiosity too.

Now they have an option for bluetooth and an app if you install it on your phone… but that’s not a car connected to the internet, and we never installed the app.

From what I’m seeing its installed on all cars. The app was the primary way to interact with it, and it is indeed internet connected, including location services (so you can find your car on an internet map if you lost it) in 2019 models. The useful features required a subscription, but the basic features showing when you need an oil change (from vehicle telemetry) and being able to schedule service are apparently free for life. However, Acura disable the paid service July 21, 2025. I wouldn’t have any faith they disable the telemetry though.

The mobile phone radio is apparently in the TCU (Telematic Control Module) which was not an option but installed in all vehicles.

Here’s a youtube video of someone taking their TCU out of their 2020 RDX if you’re interested.

My wife’s 2019 Acura isn’t internet ready…

Acura has been putting mobile data connection and collection devices in their cars since 2014. They call it their subscription service AcuraLink.

It was even installed on their lowest end car in 2014, the ILX:

If you’re depending 100% on public fast chargers, I agree it’s likely not a good fit economically.

Do you have the space to charge where you live? That’s usually the game changer to make EVs slow inexpensive to drive.

If it.were truly 1/9 we wouldn’t be having this conversation because all vehicles would be EVs.

“Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) accounted for 97.8% of all new passenger car registrations in Norway through the first eight months of 2026, according to the Norwegian Road Federation (OFV).” source

“New energy vehicles (NEVs)—including pure electric and plug-in hybrid cars—accounted for a record 65.2% of new car sales in mainland China” source

Don’t teslas ship with perelli’s?

I think thats only the “Performance” models. The Standard and Long Range originally came with Pilot Sport 4 or Primacy (which don’t last) and have since been replaced on all new shipping cars a few years ago with Hankook Ventus.

Where did you get this idea? EV’s go through brakes and tires faster than their ICE equivalents because of the extra vehicle weight.

Oh my, I think you just showed your hand about lack your of experience on the topic.

EVs (and many hybrids for that matter) use the brake pads significantly less than ICE vehicles because most of the braking energy is recovered from regen. I had a Prius for 9 years and sold it with the original factory brake pads still on it, with likely another 4-5 years of life on them.

My EV’s brake pads are still at 95% life even with the car being 4 years old.

Do you really or do you have one pair of ANES, one of NES, and one of HA?

And even weak 6ghz is better that 5ghz until the very outer reaches of signal.

I’m not doubting you, but I’m confused how this can be. My understanding is generally ss the wavelength of the radio wave shrinks, signal through medium attenuation increases. What is it about 6GHz over 5GHz that provides that island of stability you’re describing?

The increase in frequency reduces signal penetration. Things like walls become major sources of signal attenuation. In open office plans, with no obstructive walls, no problem. In a house or apartment where you’re separated by multiple walls (and the materials/thickness those walls are made of) that can add up to significant signal loss.

I haven’t personally tried any 6GHz wifi technologies. Have you used it in any places where you’re separated by obstructions from the access point?

WiFi 6e and 7 are legitimate competitors to standard 1gig Ethernet.

In isolation, perhaps. Now cram 25 neighbors in high density housing in range with one another all using the same spectrum and see if that performance still is sustainable.

That’s still worse than abandoning flying by and large.

edit: I don’t intend to let “perfect be the enemy of good”. It’s more like we got used to a lot of things and sometimes don’t question them radically enough.

Do you think humanity, as a whole, is going to abandon flying? I certainly don’t. So the best solution is to make changes to limit the behaviors and modify the behaviors to cause less harm. Again, this is just one component of a larger solution, but its a good one to address what air travel still needs to occur.

A bit of greenwashing here and there just isn’t good enough, if we want to save what’s left of the climate we knew.

We’re already beyond that. We’re not getting that back.

the electricity would be better put into a battery;

With any technology humaity has for the forseeable future, no amount of battery storage will enable commodity transatlantic air travel.

I’m also talking about installing enough solar to eclipse beyond what all of our batteries can hold.

Sorry, I think casual air travel is one of those things that’s only possible with cheap energy provided by oil.

We’re saying the same thing on this point with both our posts. You’re saying “use rail instead of flying because batteries can’t fly a plane”. I’m saying "if we remove petroleum, the cost of jet travel will be substantially higher and consumers will seek a cheaper alternative (which may end up being rail). "

SAF is only economically approachable because nobody wants it because oil is cheaper. If we were in a situation without oil, SAF, biodiesel, etc., would immediately get smacked with a demmand curve making it unaffordable.

Sure, but you’re going whole hog to the “conserve” approach, which I agree is a component, but may not be the full or best answer. My suggestion would drastically increase solar power far far beyond our current electricity needs to create liquid SAF fuels directly from electricity and basic CO2/water inputs (aka Power-to-liquids). Theres a plant in Washington state doing exactly this.

It’s like how you can run your car on fry grease scavenged from fast food dumpsters, but everyone can’t.

I see that as too short sighted. Take the longer view. Fry grease is a very easily available and low transformation source of energy. There are other sources of energy that are a level more harder to get, and a level of more transformation needed to be usable in our chosen application.

With scarcity (artificial or natural) and scale we would see switches to these other forms of non-petroleum energy. I’m not saying its an overnight thing, but I don’t think you are either with your proposals.

What we need to replace is the 80% of our energy use that is currently ONLY serviceable with oil. For instance, batteries are too fucking heavy to run an airplane.

We have the solution already. Its called SAF (sustainable aviation fuel). It is possible to fly 100% with zero petroleum jet fuel. Its been done a few times as demonstrations in passenger airliners. There are two problems, but both have solutions:

1. Gaskets - Petroleum jet fuel has certain naturally occurring compounds which compliment currently used rubber seals. SAF doesn’t have these compounds, but not all rubber seals need them, just the most commonly used. Future planes are being built that don’t use the old seals but there’s a huge fleet of planes that still use the old seals in use. So this problem has a solution, and time will largely solve it as old airframes age out and are replaced by new ones.

2. Expense - SAF is a good chunk more expensive that petroleum jet fuel. Thats it though. Its expensive. It will mean higher cost for operating an aircraft and that has economic consequences.

So one year of increase

You’re moving the goalposts of this discussion. We’re talking about 2025-2026 activities. From the OP article:

"According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, US coal consumption increased by 10% in 2025, compared to a 0.7% rise globally. "

vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

…so that point is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

In this context, no there isn’t a difference. A net increase in coal usage is the only measure. Under that measure both the USA and China have increased domestic coal consumption for energy production.

Even if you want to try to play the “planned economy” card, I doubt in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), which was formally approved at the National People’s Congress in March 2026, did the concept of $100+Brent crude prices exist as a recorded target. China has been buying up cheap Urals oil from Russia’s sanctioned shadow fleet of tankers for a couple years now increasing their strategic reserves (far higher than even the USA). Even those Urals shipments have largely curtained as its now open season for Ukrainian drones knocking out shadow fleet tankers by literally the dozen.

China is not sinning by increasing coal use any greater than the USA by just reacting to geopolitical market conditions and the need to continue to power its nation.

US increased coal use. China did not.

China increased coal usage too.

China’s coal power on the rise again in 2026, reversing first-in-a-decade decline

Your search with any search engine will produce CO2.

AI-powered searches consume roughly ten times more energy than standard Google searches.

When you’re Googling something add “-ai” (without the quotes to the end of your search string. It will skip processing the search with and AI and answer and presumably drop your Google search CO2 footprint by 90%.