Linas.P

167k kilometres is about where I would expect you need transmission fluid changed. Although it is very picky on the level and the procedure is very specific, so many shops that are not specialist in transmissions does it in correctly and makes issue worse. Jerky shifts could be result of dirty ATF, or wrong level of ATF, or it could be issue with valve assembly (solenoids). I agree that issue could be engine related, but 950RPM is nothing out of ordinary... it should be way higher/lower before it causes issues. Are there any codes related to anything, even before you replaced transmission fluid? Have the shop taken out the sump and replaced the filter?

What revs we are talking about here and what conditions? 700 +/-50RPM is the perfect idle speed for BRAN NEW warm engine in P. As you go trough gears the RPM will change, as well if you use any accessories, again RMP will fluctuate. 1000+ RPM is fine for cold start and warm-up, but it should drop down below 1000 after couple of minutes. I think if you just came in the morning and turn on the engine, then anything up-to 1250RPM will be normal and it will drop down. Now obviously with mileage and wear, you won't get this perfect idling, I definably would not expect this perfect idle at 167k. So maybe you have a little dirt on throttle body, little bit of dirt in MAF, little bot of carbon on valves, in injectors etc. etc. it will depend on the fuel as well, on the temperature outside. So I would say anything between 650-1000 RPM would be normal. If the car is warm all accessories are off and it is still above 1000RPM, then it is not ideal. What issues you have with gearbox?

I know the feeling, although Lexus is slightly better in this aspect as they don't have many option in UK. It is for example real headache to buy used BMW, because they have millions of options and it seems you can never find the right combination and there is always something that you will miss not fitted. Yet with Lexus you can usually find the car that is basically perfect spec. or at least completely fully loaded.

I know that... however I will take a risk of getting car to repair shop.

That is a dilemma, it is annoying to replace something that is working fine for extra £200, but at the same time not doing it now could cost more later. Kind of typical preventative maintenance question I guess. Even worse I have checked price from US/UAE and it is not much different £57x4+£3.78 delivery + 50% chance to be hit with import duties. Finally, TPMS seems to last longer on newer cars - 7-10 years if good estimate for GS3/IS2,but TPMS issues are less common on GS4/IS3, but at the same time only now early GS4s are coming to 10 years of age... on top of that I assume you can see each individual sensor on the dash? So replacing them one by one shouldn't be too difficult. Obviously, on the flip side they are MOT requirement from 2012 so no longer optional. Do you have techstream? Sometimes techstream allows to check how much battery life is left? Sorry, I know I am not helping decision, but in your case I think you can do either - replace all now and have at least 7-8 years of trouble free motoring, or replace them one by one as they go faulty over the course of next few years, maybe even 3-4 years. I don't think you regret it either way.

Preferably, not from ruzzian propaganda pamphlets or directly from bot factory script! I assume you were one of these people in 1940s? I am just saying what you saying isn't anything new... just treasonous... Imagine if they had their way in WW2...

ohhh man you deluded... I am ashamed for you quite honestly... No repairing that thought - when ruzzian propaganda destroys the brain it is terminal. Quite sad that reasonable discussion is not possible with people like this. Population in my country dropped by 50% in WW2, highest per capita decline of any country during WW2. More importantly majority of people didn't die from war, they died from being sent into Siberia and or simply executed for being educated, or owning land, or business... that was enough to be sentenced to death or exile... and death. From people exiled 88% died, that is more than in nazi extermination camps (85%). So I am just going to ignore the fact you simply are not educated in history and you didn't know that ruzzians killed more people in the peace time than nazis killed in the WW2, including 6 million Ukrainians in Holodomor, which is about the same number as people who died in Holocaust. Oh an by the way - in the west (including UK) it is widely accepted that WW2 was started by nazis invading Poland, except that is NOT true. WW2 started when nazis and soviets invaded Poland TOGETHER! Tell me which part of this statement is not true - certain molotov and ribbentrop agreed to divide Eastern Europe, as nazis were invading Poland, soviets were invading westwards via Baltics and they met somewhere in the middle of the Poland. Ohhh and just for good measure soviets summary executed 22,000 Polish officers, just because... So you never dare again defending the soviets. And what is ruzzian republic? They are just soviets by different name. They had all the chances given to them to change, but they proven once again in 1994, 1999 (Chechnya), 2008 (Georgia) and 2014, 2022 (Ukraine)... that they are good old animals and soviets. These are just facts... ruzzia is imperialist state with the goal of restoring ruzzian empire. Who said that? putka himself. What missile? one of thousands of ruzzians missile that hitting Ukrainian cities everyday. Anyone who dies in territory of Ukraine since 2014 from actions of fighting are the fault of ruzzians. Sure - Ukrainian missiles will kill some people in counter-offensive, it is war zone, but all those deaths without exception are fault of ruzzia. It is like saying - we shouldn't have done D-Day, because that killed some French civilians... ohhh yes it did, collateral damage is just part of war, but responsibility is for those who started the war. The rest of your post is filled with propaganda directly from kremlin. Minsk II agreement cannot be implemented because ruzzia continuously violated it, in agreement it stated that Ukraine should have control of the boarder as long as it allows self-governance of Donetsk and Luhansk (sort of Federalisation), but ruzzia never allowed Ukraine to take back control of the boarders, just pumped the eastern part of Ukraine with weapons and mercenaries... who said that? putka himself said that in 2022, confirming that all "little green man" were ruzzian regulars and mercenaries. So don't you dare saying it is western propaganda (which by the way exists), because this is what putka bragged about himself. As well Minsk II said that heavy weapons should be moved away from the front line and ruzzia continued shelling Ukraine all the time. Regarding "killing of ruzzian speakers in eastern Ukraine", this is very common and easily debunked lie. OHCHR/OSCE stats (which is independent international body reporting to UN security Council, so including ruzzia, was observing casefire under Minsk II) proves that quite easily - 38 People total have died in 2021 on both sides, majority from mines, or unexploded ordinance. So your argument is self-defeating, because you saying ruzzia wanted to protect people of Donbas, so they have launched all out war which killed tens of thousands of people, instead of simply leaving the occupied territories?! How does that make sense?! So they have occupied part of other country and that occupation led to low intensity conflict which lead to deaths, it is still ruzzian fault regardless. US engineered regime change is idiotic claim - even if we accept that there was some interference in Maidan in 2014 (which is conspiracy at best), you still cannot deny that Ukraine had not ONE, but TWO completely free and independent elections recognised worldwide (including ruzzia) where they have elected their government. So this argument could be somewhat used for month or two in 2014, but it becomes completely invalid by the end of 2014. It is certainly no longer an excuse in 2022. "Whataboutism" fallacy doesn't work either. Sure you can criticise US policy in Iraq or Libya. Fine. I am not big fan of it either, but that gives NO RIGHT for ruzzia to invade anyone. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. Sure - maybe you can say US are hypocrites for criticizing ruzzia if you want, but that still don't make any difference in the invasion. It is 100% ruzzians fault and it is criminal at every level. Saying that this is somehow "russiaphobia" is like saying that that British people had "germanphobia" in WW2. I don't think it is true, even if lines are sometimes blurred, one thing is to hate certain nationality and completely different is objectively hate regime controlling the country and call out their war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am sure people hated nazis (don't you?), but that does not mean they had "germanphobia". Going forward - I just set certain somebody as "ignored" and hopefully we can get back to the topic. Please...

Is there any reason it shouldn't be? What is your experience with ruzzists which makes you have different opinion? As for me - they just killed half of my countrymen and contorted the country itself for better part of 200 years... and I am not even Ukrainian. As well I would like to make clear distinction between Russian people and their regime, or people who supports the war, they are not the same thing. So it is not russiaphobia and more off just seeing the things the way they are. I do not care what nationality are people who target and maime civilians and then throw them in mass graves, I just recognise them for who they are - criminals. The above questions does NOT require answering, because that is different topic altogether. However, there is no discussion about war crimes (they are factual) regardless of what you think about regime in ruzzia.

Or nearly new... I honestly can't find any reason to ever buy new car as an individual, where you basically throw away 30% of cost right away. Sure if that is on company and there are tax initiatives and potential write-off from the profit and corporate tax then that works out well and often it can only be done on new car, so then choice becomes. Should I buy used car with same saving, or should I buy new car and get same amount back in taxes. And new it is then. But for individual, just picking-up say 2 years old car with barely any miles and picking-up 30% discount is a way to go. Even if I had unlimited amount of money I would probably buy used cars... I guess I am just too cheap.

And second serious concern is that in democratic society we even needed persuasion from US (or whom ever) to do that right thing... as if somehow hospitals and civilians being deliberately targeted and bombed was by itself not persuasive enough to take that step. I agree with you - even single putkins defender seems like one too many, I just fail to see how people can justify it... and to be fair when pressed they usually confess they are not honest with themselves e.g. they start by saying that they think "West/US made mistakes and maybe provoked ruzzists", but when countered with comparison with nazis and massive mistake of appeasement policy throughout 30's that led into WW2 and identical mistake we made since 2014, then they suddenly switch to argument that they are simply afraid of nukes... which is fine, I think there is reason to be afraid, but then don't defend the actions of deranged fascists dictator, or create cover story and excuses for his action. Simply say "I am too weak and too afraid and I rather see all war crimes known in humanity to be unleashed on Ukraine, than I would stand a risk of nukes being used". I guess this is developing to another thread...

There is saying for a reason - "what is too good to be true..." Clearly there was a catch, he was happy to supply gas as long as Europe was happy to accept unprovoked invasions to the countries bordering his regime, genocide and all other usual ruzzists past times, like ra*pe, summary killings, sending people to Siberia to die (sadly we 10,000 years before it has turned into tropical place) etc. So I really cannot see your point here - Europe, especially few countries like Germany were short-sighted and were financing their own demise.

That is fine, but then why brainwash people about "climate emergency" when there is none? Energy independence is good enough goal on itself, it is strategic goal as well, so why bother with distraction? I guess my argument is - treat people like adults and give them real reasons, instead of trying to deliver energy independence under false pretence of climate change. And what about opportunity costs? How can we even decide what opportunities we have when we being lied to? Why not ask question - "do you want to spend A. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on nuclear fusion which will mean unlimited clean energy and energy independence for all, B. 10 years and £ 1 Trillion on Mars settlement, which will mean preserving human life in case of catastrophe on earth, or C. 10 years £ 1 Trillion on getting to 'net zero' emissions, which will severely worsen your quality of life, but will make pink-haired Karen ecomentalist happier". We we are talking about CO2 levels, again it all comes down to same questions - "since when". Current, ~400ppm CO2 level in atmosphere is quite low and even burning all fossil fuels won't be enough to get us to 2000ppm which was once the norm on this planet. Note as well - when the CO2 level was very high, the earth looked jungle like with giant plants growing everywhere. The higher is atmospheric CO2 the quicker the plants and trees grow and the bigger they grow, so it is kind of self-mitigating (as long as we don't cut those trees down). Oceans can't absorb more CO2, hence why we have increasing level of atmospheric CO2 since 1950s when it is theorised the maximum level of ocean absorption was exceeded. In short - there is no risk of ocean acidification past certain point and that is before we even consider the constant melting of ice in the poles which are diluting the water anyway. Now what is true... some animals and plants will go extinct due to changes, others will survive... again that just adds to 99%+ of all species that have gone extinct. I just don't really understand the problem here - is human caused extinction any worse than extinction caused by something else? a meteorite strike? What if humans one day will be capable of deflecting meteorite that would otherwise end life on earth, would that allow us to live comfortably and consider that we prevented enough extinction to cause a little bit of it ourselves. This is by the way not an attack on anyone in particular, I am just trying to establish where is the red line for our morale?! What level of extinction is good enough, what level of pollution is good enough, what level of emissions and climate change is acceptable? Because every human alive creates emissions, pollution and potentially climate change, and when we have 8.1 billion of us, it is simply impossible to avoid it. So one ultimate line could be that we do not care, live comfortable live, drive 9.2L V10 lifted pick-up trucks, burn coal for everything, flatten all the forests, and throw our plastic waste directly into ocean, or simply burn it in the middle of the street and other ultimate line is that we have to do Seppuku to ourselves and don't live at all, because no human caused climate change is incompatible with our life altogether. I think it is quite clear that compromise is needed between those two ultimate options, so what is required for humans to live? Do we need comfortable clothing, rich diet, internet connection and modern electronics? Do we need personal vehicles, freedom to travel and air conditioned homes with heated swimming pool? I reckon we do, especially heated swimming pool, and preferably helipad as well. I think we should be able to live very comfortable life, every 8.1 or 12 billion of us. Because the life where one can't eat meat, or where one can't drive in their safe, clean and comfortable car to work is not worth living. There are things which we can get rid off thought - fast fashion, excess packaging, polluting the rivers/oceans with plastic, cheap import toys, electronics from china that fail within week and becomes landfill, climate protesters throwing paint, damaging property and their non-sensical signs, other inefficiencies like insufficient road infrastructure created traffic jams and causing extra pollution. We can certainly do some trimming down, but it should not include anything that meaningfully restricts our comfort, unless somebody wants to do it voluntarily. What I mean - I don't mind people being hippies, living in the forest off grid and eating their own *******, as long as they don't expect me to join them... and if our comfortable existence means that 1 out of 2500 species of flea will go extinct so be it... in fact I do not care if any particular animal would go extinct (just to be clear they all not going to be extinct), I like dolphins, I love all big cats and it would be sad if they would go, but if the choice is between them and heated pool... then heated pool it is. I reckon we can sacrifice 20% of ~8 million species of life there is and there will still be plenty left, and more new ones to come. I can certainly sleep well knowing we have 1 million less species of insects. Again this is question of where we draw the line? Remember the meteorite? Well that bugger drawn the line on ~75% species destroyed some 66 million years ago... and that was just one of many such events. So if we assume that we can protect planet from meteorite strike, could we say we have moral right to enjoy our lives as long as extinction we causing is below say 50% (although we most likely not yet capable of diverting 9 miles wide asteroid)?! An by the way - human extinction due to climate change is impossible, so we talking only about extinction of other species. So question is - where is this moral line and who is to decide? Should the pink haired, retarded just stop oil ecoterrorist have a say? Or should we simply set the upper limit of destruction one could cause (let's say things like burning tyres and pouring used engine oil into the rivers begin banned, or overhunting of endangered species) and leave the rest for people to individually and voluntarily to decide for themselves (like whenever they have kids, or heated pool, or both - simple matter is, having kids is probably more detrimental for climate than heated pools)? I an fact I think we had enough environment protection since early 2000s, current policies are already overreach and overreaction. So if we just go back to say 2010, make sure that we enforce existing restrictions we should be good... no?

Mandatory from only from 2012. Hate TPMS on my 2006 GS, totally useless and can't be disabled. Driving with warning light is an option, but it is kind of annoying because it as well block the small screen for temp/mpg/range. Other thing to note - if somebody is deciding to replace them, then go for genuine Toyota ones. 7-10 years lifetime is for genuine sensors, aftermarket ones last few years at best and considering the cost of fitting them (presumably close to £50 - remove the tyre, put the tyre back, rebalance the wheel) there is no reason to waste money. Obviously the most optimal way - leave it faulty until you need tyres replaced, because then TPMS replacement will basically be free... as removing, refitting and re-balancing tyres will be needed anyway.

Sadly it has failed the MOT, but consolation is at least that it wasn't something obvious (I hate when cars fail on faulty bulb or tyres worn down to cords, things that could have been easily checked by 5 years old). Secondly, it had many failures in the past, so it is not like tainting clean record anyway - I am quite relaxed about it. It was hand brake efficiency below 50%, which is kind of unfortunate as the hand brake works fine and it is kind of redundant on automatic car, so I would have never known. And secondly - failed emissions on lambda. They reckon it is because of few small holes in exhaust, but I expected it to be just advisory for "minor exhaust leak". Again kind of unfortunate as it actually passed the emissions and lambda fail just means there is excess oxygen in exhaust. It does makes sense that hole in exhaust could cause it, but didn't seem to be obvious enough leak to suspect anything. So have few things to address until actual MOT expires, not ideal considering handbrake is considered "dangerous" fault... (NO IT ISN'T on auto car and especially considering it still somewhat works, but in theory I can't drive it). This was done by Lexus, so they reckon handbrake could be simply adjusted (not sure why they haven't attempted that during the services or even after MOT, could have saved me the inconvenience) and once holes are fixed on exhaust it should be good on emissions as well. Will see how it goes...

That I know 🙂 Was just looking at one 2008 IS-F with 58,000 Km and it costs ~£15,900 delivered to UK. There is just no way one could get 36,000 miles car under £20,000 in UK. That said, I am still not sure how much more it would cost in taxes, whenever it needs approval etc. What I am reading on internet it seems that importing from outside of UK/EU would be VAT and Duty, and for any passenger vehicle with less than 8 seats and over 10 years old approval is not required. So it would seem like £15,900 car delivered to UK + 10% duty +20% vat... although duty is not very clear. And I guess few pennies on actually registering, getting license plates etc. So if that is the case, then it works out ~£21,000 anyway... which then defeats the point. Yet again - it is very much unclear whenever the listed price already includes taxes and duties, and if so whenever it is just Japan side, transit, or both Japan and UK. The reason I am asking - it would be interesting to know what is the final price of the car once it is one the road in UK with MOT and road legal, as it seems there are so many variables. It seems strange that there are so many cars coming into UK from Japan, yet reliable and clear information about exact cost isn't that clear.

What are import taxes like? Because shipping, inspection, insurance seems to be ~$4000, but I never sure if there is anything else to be paid before it could be registered in UK?

Just don't forget to add thousands ... 20 thousands, 30 thousands, 40 thousands ... 🙂 Note as well CO2 is not pollutant... lead, arsenic, soot are examples of pollutants, CO2 isn't greenhouse gas, but it isn't actually pollutant, it is inert gas and actually vital for survival of most of plants. So we need to separate - global warming from pollution in this case. So again green energy transition is more about "keeping it tidy around us", the comparison could be made with banana peel, imagine you eating banana in the park, it would not hurt the nature id you just throw the peel into the grass, natural fertiliser, but it is just unsightly and would look bad for other visitors, so you put it in the bin, or take it with you.

Volunteers? Who did we send to India, which turned out to be North America? If there is commercial gain of exploring something, there will be people who will go... on positive side we can get rid of Elon Musk! He will be first one to go by himself, in the ship he build himself, which in 100 years time will be considered to be "inflatable dingy" equivalent of space craft and people will get fascinated - "how did he reached the Mars in inflatable dingy!?"

I am glad you have different opinion... but who isn't "selfish", is lion selfish to to hunt down gazelle? does amoeba selfish to eat other single cell organisms? What I am saying we are here to survive - AT ANY COST NECESARY. Our whole existence is kind of accident (unless we delve into conspiracy theories). Now if we look at humans as form of life obviously we are disruptive, BUT to be honest anything we can do to this planet would be considered rather mild in geologic terms. So again I think even if we have impact on climate change, then reducing it is just a hygiene factor, we don't want to live around our own rubbish in principle. But then this kind of explains why I am so indifferent if humans go extinct, because I myself consider us as destructive and rather dangerous (or at least capable of being dangerous). That said - I am not too sure warming is in line with human population, it think this could be quite objectively disproved, consider below (the glaciation/interglaciation cycles, which as well corresponds to average temperatures of current ice age): Obviously, this requires zooming in quite significantly to put human population in perspective... I have overlaid last 10,000 years of human population below: Note that ~120,000 ago it was hotter despite there being absolutely no fossil fuel use and hardly any humans at all! As well human population basically exploded since ~1800, yet there is barely any noticeable increase in temperatures! In fact temperatures have slightly decreased since ~10,000 ago and end of last glaciation period of 20,000-12,000 years can't be in any way related to human activity, unless again we subscribe to some conspiracy theory about there being ancient high tech civilization or aliens.

Possibilities of our demise are endless, however climate change is not one of them... That is why I am saying - let's try to be clean and tidy for our own convenience, but let's not overblow this issue, it is not existential risk, so let's not waste time and value resources trying to become carbon neutral. Again - it is an opportunity cost... what can help us to survive nuclear war, a horrible virus (although 100% death rate is questionable)... maybe living on more than 1 planet can help?! Actually, that solves quite a bit of issue for us, pollution, overpopulation, resources and redundancy in case of catastrophic event.

I personally would say so, but I realise that not everyone are on board, which is understandable. However, whatever will be the reason for human extinction, it will NOT be climate change. Sure life could become harder, current fertile land can become infertile, although again currently tundra is infertile because of permafrost, but the ground itself is perfect, so we may gain more than we lose. Sure maybe some freak events, like tornados and floods will kill some people, but realistically NOTHING climate related can wipe us out completely. Just consider this - humans existed for AT LEAST 300,000 years, in that time we had 4 ice ages, proper 2 miles deep ice covering 40% of the planet which is way worse than tropical tundra option, our ancestors were pre-stone age (meaning they did not know how to use tools at all and were just running around with naked arse) and they still survived. So honestly, nothing climate change related is even remote risk - crank A/C harder that is all. The climate change related unrest - that is different topic, but it is not the weather that will kills us. But you know what could kills us - Meteorite! Has done many times in the past, this is not some sort of hypothetical scenario, it is well known all life ending event. I would assume humans are advanced enough now where we would survive as a species, in some sort of bunkers etc. we would see it coming, somebody will survive, but it is highly likely that within 100 years we would be back into approximately medieval times, maybe early industrialisation, not stone age, but with 80%, 90%, maybe 95% of people dying we would inevitable lose much of knowledge of how to make stuff, or simply people who can make it or even machines to make it. It is all good and well to know how to make computer chip, but without $100 million machine you can't do it... heck chinsese can't do it properly even with machine! But even 5% is like 400 million people - so more people would survive than there were alive before bubonic plague. Obviously, that is all assuming we don't blow ourselves into pieces many times before meteorite come hurtling towards us. So in that sense - meteorite is big danger, but not very likely to happen. Climate Chance is likely to happen, but realistically it is irrelevant for species survival. As I said $30 trillions are required for US to become carbon neutral, US is ~5% of global emissions, so I assume for us as species we need at least $600 Tn to become carbon neutral. And us being carbon neutral is not guaranteed, in fact it's most likely won't make a difference on climate change. Sorry... it 100% will not make a difference on climate change, because climate is constantly changing. The only thing $600 Tn can achieve is to remove human impact from the natural climate change, but it does not guarantee that that natural 3C increase in temperatures won't happen, it may delay it slightly. In short it is WASTE OF MONEY and resources. And it is waste of OPPORTUNITY. Because you know what $ 10 Tn can do? It can easily finance colonisation of the Moon or Mars. So we can do it 60 times over for the money we wasting on something that may not have any impact on something that isn't even a risk for our survival. Now again - I am not sure everyone agrees that we need to colonise anything, or how to do it, but if we are concerned about our survival then this is just at least 60 times better option than trying to become carbon neutral. Now sure - we can come to the stage where we can terraform the planet, and we certainly need that technology for other planets, and at that point we can go well beyond just being climate neutral, we can come to point where we actually controlling the climate precisely, reducing the carbon at will, or any other gas in atmosphere... nice comfortable and shiny 26C all year long, nice and comfortable 16C for sleeping at night, heavy rain at 6AM and 10PM to wash the streets... you get the point, but we haven't even started calculating of what it will cost. As a species we eventually get to that point if putka does not nuke the world, but before than we have many more pressing issues than climate change. And it is not about denying that it is happening, it is about putting things into perspective. In short - we are concerned too much about things that are irrelevant... I am not saying we should shaite all around us and pollute all the time, but it is just quality of life question, not survival question. And if it is quality of life question, then it is irrational to make our quality of life much worse to then make it slightly better.

And that is fair enough - when we talking about time period of BILLION years, I think it needs to be accepted that these are just current understanding. And that is key point - our understanding is constantly being updated. When I was in school the consensus was that people have roamed the earth for ~200,000 years. Then we have found remains which were carbon dated 300,000 years... and by now the working theory is ~400,000-2,000,000. I think this is more or less true for earth age, but what is important here is that earth is AT LEAST billions years old, whenever it is 4.5 or 5.3 or 3.5 billion in grand scheme of things it does not matter when somebody cherry picks 150 years old temperature records and tries not only to draw conclusions from that, but as well decides on policy and forces other people to follow it. I am sorry, but current "climate emergency" has about the same level of scientific proof as most of religions. And it is not far from the truth - many climate activists and their organisations have religious sect like structures and belief system. Even if somebody supports them and thinks we need to do more to reduce our contribution to climate change, it is still undeniable that climate activists do not follow science, but rather their own "belief system". And that is precisely my point - we looking at the tiny period. Even the ice drilling is just tiny bit of story, because consensus is that earth was completely free of ice ~115,000 years ago. So you one obviously can't use ice core modelling before that period! That is why so ridiculous when some potato-head so called "scientist" says that "this was hottest year for probably 120,000 years". Like yeah sure - 120,000 years ago earth was completely free of ice and tundra had tropical climate, yet somehow it was apparently colder. Last time I checked we still have ice in both poles and we still have permafrost in vast areas. This does not look very tropical to me: Yet if you google "siberia" the first link is https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-concerns-siberia-experiences-record-breaking-heat-n1216351 The "record breaking 26C". Again to your point - record breaking since when? And why do we hate people in Siberia so much... I much rather have tropical weather in tundra than 2 miles deep ice cap over UK.

My PC drives me mad, I have little weather widget at the bottom and it used to say just temperature, then they improved it to give warnings like "rain is coming", "high wind" etc. sometimes quite useful... Now it is outright propaganda, every bloody day is record high! Not joking - was sitting at home on rainy Saturday day in July, 22 degrees, windy, had to close window in the room as it was outright cold in the morning, what the widget says "RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE!" 22C in bright red with red exclamation mark (or maybe it is rea thermometer)... I am sorry, but even in my short little lifetime I have seen hotter Julys! And fair enough if it would be some generic location, I know it was hot in Spain that day, but no it is my location, my temperature and it is record high! What?! As well now BBC shows temperatures between 10-12C as yellow, 13-14C already is kind of amber and it is nearly red by the time it gets to 21-24C. No! I am sorry, but 24C is just comfortable normal temperature in spring and autumn and it is outright disappointing in summer. I guess nice if you sitting in the office, but not a day to go to the beach for sure! I would say ~28C is what normal summer is like, but I don't want to see any amber until it hits at least 30C, and any red before it is 40C. And I have no issue calling hot day a hot day and showing it as red, last summer for example was very hot when we had all the fires near London, even houses burned. As it happens I was in the Egypt at the time and it gain was kind of disappointing, because when we left the Heathrow it was 38C, when we landed in Sharm it was 42C, I even joked that there is no point going in Egypt anymore when we have such temps in UK. Cool - show such days as red! And indeed it was hottest day since record began in 1884 or something like that. But 21C as redish-amber in the summer?! What is that? And here is another thing - record high since 1884 (maybe different date, but the point is - few 100 years at best)... Sorry, but that is just trivial, even our race which is just a tine dot in the timeline has existed depending on the study for 300,000 -2,000,000 years. Why we care about temperature record since 150 years ago? It is almost like saying "you are smartest and most beautiful lady named Karen I have met in last 15 minutes!" Here is nice graph - age of the earth and then there are "hominins" - just a dot! I am pretty sure they could not make it smaller in this resolution, but even single pixel is probably exaggerating it! And we think that 150 year old record means something!

Climate Change had many connotations, with the perspective on things that I have, I consider it just normal that climate does change, to be honest I knew that when I was like 10 years old, because as surprising as it is kids actually learns about the history and various changes the planet went trough. Well at least I hope so - because in the days when I was in school (which wasn't that long ago!) we had something that roughly translates into "getting to know your planet/environment", this was for the primary school and had explained broad topics like basics of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy and history. Just high level, but putting everything in perspective. So it went into how earth was formed, the key periods (geologic scale), ice ages etc. So that is what 7 years olds learn! Meaning that by the time I was 10 I had rough understanding that climate is constantly variable, it does get colder and hotter all the time and that those period can last 10s and even 100s of thousands of years. Yet Climate Change in many people mind is some sort of negative thing, for various reasons, but common ones are pollution and human activity, yet natural reasons for Climate Change are almost always ignored. But like that is not enough - Climate Change was not shocking enough, now we have new terms "Climate Catastrophe" and "Climate Emergency", despite it neither being catastrophic (as Ice Age would be), nor really that "emergent" as even in worst case scenario it will take thousands of years for meaningful change to happen. Same with Sea Level and Salt Level, same with animals going extinct - over 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct! I am all for preservation, but adaptations, mutations and extinctions just part of existence. So although I would say "climate change is fact" - I mean it in a way that constant temperature, humidity, co2, o2 levels change is just normal.

So it kind of sounds like it would require installing dedicated switch to fold it? Is that correct assumption? Else if switch is ignored (could I just ignore two cables that should be going to the switch?), then I guess it could be simply made it to fold when car is locked and unfold when unlocked, kind of losing "smart" part of function?! Which to be honest I guess it is fine for me. In this case I can maybe tap into double-lock feature, so if car just locked then mirrors stay out, but if I double lock it then they fold. That would be neat!