This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these >internet-connected "smart" features that allow a company or the government
to disable (or charge) me for basic features and functionality. I'm the
only one who controls which buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not
Gavin Newsom.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote
start in the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before
work? That's now "unnecessary pollution".
. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these
internet-connected "smart" features that allow a company or the government >> to disable (or charge) me for basic features and functionality. I'm the
only one who controls which buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not
Gavin Newsom.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote
start in the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before
work? That's now "unnecessary pollution".
Two comments.
You live in sunny California. You don't know what winter is.
When I was a kid, we warmed the vehicle for a few minutes, not for the interior heat but for the engine oil. We used to have engine oil
heaters, which meant we could skip the warmup period. Interior heat came
off the warmed engine and required at least ten minutes of driving. We
didn't get warm interiors on short trips. Big deal.
Later, luxury cars became equipped with seat warmers. As I am opposed to cooking my own testicles, I refuse to use it. Men who do use it are
idiots, but maybe they shouldn't be reproducing anyway.
It is, absolutely, unnecessary pollution.
I once wore my best pair of
Little Miss Judgie Pants and yelled at a douchebag who used the feature
to keep the vehicle running for 15 minutes at a public library on a warm
day.
Also, it's just one more feature that makes things simple for thieves stealing luxury vehicles for overseas resale who have the right tech.
All that being said, a manufacturer's ability to enable or disable
features by remote control has absolutely turned modern vehicles into
death traps by remote control.
This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these internet-connected
"smart" features that allow a company or the government to disable (or charge)
me for basic features and functionality. I'm the only one who controls which buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not Gavin Newsom.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote start in
the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before work? That's now "unnecessary pollution".
Without warning, Germany ordered Lexus to remotely shut down the remote-start function on all combustion vehicles nationwide-- leaving over 100,000 drivers stranded in freezing temperatures. A Toyota rep confirmed the move, calling it
"compliance". But compliance with what? This is the new climate authoritarianism-- where your ability to heat your own car is revoked overnight with an app update
The World Economic Forum said it plainly: "You will own nothing and you will be happy about it." And now it's happening--renting features, renting heat, renting freedom. The pretext is the climate. The real goal is control. And electric vehicles? They're even easier to shut down.
Today it's your car. Tomorrow it's your fridge, your heat, your bank account. Make one "wrong" post or attend the "wrong" protest and Palantir's AI could decide you no longer deserve access to any or all of them.
Also, it's just one more feature that makes things simple for thieves >stealing luxury vehicles for overseas resale who have the right tech.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these
internet-connected
"smart" features that allow a company or the government to disable (or
charge)
me for basic features and functionality. I'm the only one who controls which
buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not Gavin Newsom.
Plus, it still has solenoids, which makes it immune to a loss of artificial electricity.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote start >> in
the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before work? That's >> now "unnecessary pollution".
Without warning, Germany ordered Lexus to remotely shut down the
remote-start
function on all combustion vehicles nationwide-- leaving over 100,000
drivers
stranded in freezing temperatures. A Toyota rep confirmed the move, calling >> it
"compliance". But compliance with what? This is the new climate
authoritarianism-- where your ability to heat your own car is revoked
overnight with an app update
The World Economic Forum said it plainly: "You will own nothing and you will
be happy about it." And now it's happening--renting features, renting heat, >> renting freedom. The pretext is the climate. The real goal is control. And >> electric vehicles? They're even easier to shut down.
Today it's your car. Tomorrow it's your fridge, your heat, your bank
account.
Make one "wrong" post or attend the "wrong" protest and Palantir's AI could >> decide you no longer deserve access to any or all of them.
In <10kokrv$1f7pq$2@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
[snip.. regarding "remote start"]
Also, it's just one more feature that makes things simple for thieves >>stealing luxury vehicles for overseas resale who have the right tech.
All properly designed remote start systems (which is probably 99 or
so percent of factory installed, and maybe 50% of after market) will
let you start the vehicle remotely and warm up/cool down, but will
shut down if you go into gear without inserting the key/using the
prosimity key fob, etc.
Jan 20, 2026 at 11:25:51 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these >>>internet-connected "smart" features that allow a company or the government >>>to disable (or charge) me for basic features and functionality. I'm the >>>only one who controls which buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not >>>Gavin Newsom.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote >>>start in the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before >>>work? That's now "unnecessary pollution".
Two comments.
You live in sunny California. You don't know what winter is.
When I was a kid, we warmed the vehicle for a few minutes, not for the >>interior heat but for the engine oil. We used to have engine oil
heaters, which meant we could skip the warmup period. Interior heat came >>off the warmed engine and required at least ten minutes of driving. We >>didn't get warm interiors on short trips. Big deal.
Later, luxury cars became equipped with seat warmers. As I am opposed to >>cooking my own testicles, I refuse to use it. Men who do use it are
idiots, but maybe they shouldn't be reproducing anyway.
It is, absolutely, unnecessary pollution.
You don't get to decide that.
If something is not illegal, then doing it is none of the government's
goddam business.
I decide what is and is not necessary for me. Can the government just
decide since it provides buses that driving your car altogether is >"unnecessary pollution" and have the car company "update" it so that it
won't start at all?
. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Jan 20, 2026 at 11:25:51 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
This is why I still drive a 1998 4Runner with none of these
internet-connected "smart" features that allow a company or the government >>>> to disable (or charge) me for basic features and functionality. I'm the >>>> only one who controls which buttons work in my car. Not Toyota and not >>>> Gavin Newsom.
----------------------------
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013412131899678721/vid/avc1/1920x1080/oyF_3NaGFUSXngqR.mp4
Germany just flipped the kill switch on Lexus cars-- disabling remote
start in the dead of winter. Because warming up your own vehicle before >>>> work? That's now "unnecessary pollution".
Two comments.
You live in sunny California. You don't know what winter is.
When I was a kid, we warmed the vehicle for a few minutes, not for the
interior heat but for the engine oil. We used to have engine oil
heaters, which meant we could skip the warmup period. Interior heat came >>> off the warmed engine and required at least ten minutes of driving. We
didn't get warm interiors on short trips. Big deal.
Later, luxury cars became equipped with seat warmers. As I am opposed to >>> cooking my own testicles, I refuse to use it. Men who do use it are
idiots, but maybe they shouldn't be reproducing anyway.
It is, absolutely, unnecessary pollution.
You don't get to decide that.
You cannot argue that natural rights include a right to pollute.
Pollution means you consume natural resources which you do not own. Air pollution ruins the air for others downwind.
If something is not illegal, then doing it is none of the government's
goddam business.
At the very least, pollution is a nuisance and can be regulated as such.
I decide what is and is not necessary for me. Can the government just
decide since it provides buses that driving your car altogether is
"unnecessary pollution" and have the car company "update" it so that it
won't start at all?
Stop giving them ideas. We've built an entire society around driving for
the last century. Building and zoning law, with generous off-street
parking thresholds, were for the benefit of drivers. Lots and lots of
land devoted to single-occupant vehicles lowers land use and raises everybody's costs. Let's say you're not making the decision in a vacuum
and it's necessary for you to drive because politicians in the past
decreed it thus.
This is specific to unnecessary pollution. While it may be argued that pollution while driving cannot be zero but there can be mitigation, say
by maintaining the vehicle, there's no way to argue that the whiney
fuckheads who don't want to put up with an interior that's too cold or
too hot when they first get in have a right to pollute while parked, adversely impacting others. There's no mitigation here and running the
engine while parked for this purpose isn't a natural right. Therefore
telling somebody not to do it isn't an infringement on liberty.
All this means is I'm going to make a point making my teenage kid run out to >the car and start it for me. It'll still be warm when I get in it!
This is specific to unnecessary pollution. While it may be argued that pollution while driving cannot be zero but there can be mitigation, say
by maintaining the vehicle, there's no way to argue that the whiney
fuckheads who don't want to put up with an interior that's too cold or
too hot when they first get in have a right to pollute while parked, adversely impacting others. There's no mitigation here and running the
engine while parked for this purpose isn't a natural right. Therefore
telling somebody not to do it isn't an infringement on liberty.
All this means is I'm going to make a point making my teenage kid run out to the car and start it for me. It'll still be warm when I get in it!
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
This is specific to unnecessary pollution. While it may be argued that >>pollution while driving cannot be zero but there can be mitigation, say
by maintaining the vehicle, there's no way to argue that the whiney >>fuckheads who don't want to put up with an interior that's too cold or
too hot when they first get in have a right to pollute while parked, >>adversely impacting others. There's no mitigation here and running the >>engine while parked for this purpose isn't a natural right. Therefore >>telling somebody not to do it isn't an infringement on liberty.
You should try living in a region with real winters. You'd quickly learn
to pre-start your car while removing the ice, just to make the ice
removal easier, and you may need to run the engine for a few minutes
before you can even make any real progress on the ice.
You've changed the topic
from banning remote start to running the vehicle while the driver is
present, removing ice.
Verily, in article <10kr21p$29fuq$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
You've changed the topic
from banning remote start to running the vehicle while the driver is
present, removing ice.
Not always. Sometimes I go back inside for a few minutes. No point in standing out there chipping at it when it'll be easier to remove in the
near future.
On 1/21/2026 10:15 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10kr21p$29fuq$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
You've changed the topic
from banning remote start to running the vehicle while the driver is
present, removing ice.
Not always. Sometimes I go back inside for a few minutes. No point in standing out there chipping at it when it'll be easier to remove in the near future.
If the sun is out, I usually back out into it so that will help the ice
melt faster.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
You've changed the topic
from banning remote start to running the vehicle while the driver is >>present, removing ice.
Not always. Sometimes I go back inside for a few minutes. No point in >standing out there chipping at it when it'll be easier to remove in the
near future.
Verily, in article <10kr627$2bd4a$1@dont-email.me>, did
suzeeq@imbris.com deliver unto us this message:
On 1/21/2026 10:15 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10kr21p$29fuq$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.comIf the sun is out, I usually back out into it so that will help the ice
deliver unto us this message:
You've changed the topic
from banning remote start to running the vehicle while the driver is
present, removing ice.
Not always. Sometimes I go back inside for a few minutes. No point in
standing out there chipping at it when it'll be easier to remove in the
near future.
melt faster.
Yeah, definitely a good plan. I don't have a garage (apartment life), so
it's always out in whatever sun there is. Good call on not running the
engine in a closed garage, though. :)
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 232:07:56 |
| Calls: | 193 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,667 |