Scientists manage to convert toxic plastics into fuel - Earth.com

The article is a little thin on details, and the original publication is a bit technical… but conceptually I am intrigued. 

They break down PVC using a chemical reaction by placing the plastic in a solution at room temperature. The result is a combustible fuel source and hydrochloric acid, which they can separate and capture for other uses. 

In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Science, researchers describe a one step route that converts mixed plastic waste into gasoline range hydrocarbons and hydrochloric acid (HCI) at low temperatures.

https://www.earth.com/news/scientists-manage-to-convert-toxic-plastics-into-fuel-with-95-percent-efficiency/

Prince Harry says he wants to work at Disneyland

With all of the ridiculous stories we hear about every day, this one made me smile. Prince Harry is looking for that simple way of life. 

Prince Harry says he wants to work at Disneyland – The Mercury News https://www.ocregister.com/2025/09/26/prince-harry-says-he-wants-to-work-at-disneyland/

'Grue Jay' Spotted in a Texas Backyard Is First-of-Its-Kind Hybrid

Here is some additional detail about the hybrid green and blue jay…

'Grue Jay' Spotted in a Texas Backyard Is First-of-Its-Kind Hybrid : ScienceAlert https://www.sciencealert.com/grue-jay-spotted-in-a-texas-backyard-is-first-of-its-kind-hybrid

That’s bizarre. Mark Sanchez edition.

On Saturday, there was a news story that the former jets QB was involved in some sort of altercation in Indianapolis late on Friday night, where he was in town to broadcast the colts game on Sunday. 

The story was that he was stabbed, but was fortunate to get immediate care and was taken to the hospital. Police immediately noted the attack didn't seem to be random and he may have been involved in a fight about something specific. 

A few hours later, adding literal insult to injury, police charged Sanchez with a crime, but didn't place him under arrest while he was recovering. Small details started to emerge about him being the intoxicated aggressor and somehow he was trying to enter someone's car. 

It's all just weird. 

Not that it's exactly relevant, but would it surprise you to learn he's a supporter of the orange menace? (And while I'm on that topic, Sanchez is listed as 6'2" and he towers over tiny hands man in his platform shoes and he weighs about 225 for reference). 

In any case, here is his greatest play. Ever. 

Oh and one other thing: I wonder what the broadcast will do about a replacement. I'd be happy to step in. Just saying. 

On Elon Musk

You may have noticed that he comes up a lot in things I have to say.  And I thought I'd take a moment and explain why.  

No doubt he's a lightning rod, but its more than that.  He's a modern day Thomas Edison to some degree.  He takes ideas from others and helps them to grow them, but then focuses attention on himself as "the guy" even though its mostly smoke and mirrors.  He may be smart, but he didn't invent the things that are attributed to him.

He's kind of got an evil genius thing going on, and maybe you could equate him to Lex Luthor from Superman. 

He started with some money from dad, and has managed to parlay that to be one of the worlds richest (and most recognizable) people.  

Maybe many people are over him in general, though he certainly gets a lot of "love" because of his wealth, and because he's "not afraid to speak his mind" (ie, act a little crazy, maybe).

But by many accounts, he's not a good person.  We heard reports that his father was racist, and there are certainly whispers that he is too.  It appears as though hes a misogynist too.  There was the nazi salute.  The drug use.  The absurd braggadocio.    

To me, though, the deal breaker is his family life. He has multiple children from multiple different women - that is what it is.  But he is at least guilty by association of being aligned with people who deride this from people who are not white.  And he has disowned HIS OWN child, when they identified as trans.  Everything else aside, that is inexcusable.  Its your child.  You love them unconditionally, and don't act like an ass hat when it comes to them.

So I continue to mention him because I loathe what he stands for.

Rewards programs

Remember when companies had programs that rewarded loyalty?  When companies wanted you to come in and use their product, buy their food, etc?  And the rewards programs were all about bringing you back?

So quaint.  Now, its all about spend!  

For my discussion, I'm going to talk about a few food loyalty programs.  

Starbucks at one point gave you points for buying drinks and food.  And the exchange was pretty good.  You could earn a free drink or food item after a few visits.  But then they switched it, so the points were based on how much you spent.  Then they increased the number so you had to spend more to get anything. And they added expiration to points so that you HAVE TO spend more if you want that free item.

Several companies changed from a simple means of getting points with a purchase to having to store a credit card in their app, and when you buy something using that card they'll give you points.  Which I suppose may be "easier" in a way, but isn't very consumer friendly.  And I'd rather not store a credit card in an easy to hack location, thank you.

Some, like Red Robin, used to have a loyalty program that would give you a free meal on your birthday.  It was good on anything on the menu and could be used in-restaurant or for takeout.  Then, they switched it to dine in only. Then, they added a minimum spend to get the reward.  Then, they added a requirement that you have to spend $10 during the year to get the same reward.  And I see now that they no longer have a free meal, its a free shake.  The value proposition went away, completely.

And then there was this change to the Wetzel's program .It was  previously a free pretzel for your birthday. And the email still says that it is. Except that its actually a $5 credit, and pretzels are $7.  

The nonsense about the space shuttle

This has been on my mind for a while now.

NASA had 5 space shuttles in their fleet that had actually been in orbit. 

Two of them had "rapid unexpected disassembly" during their lifetime:

Challenger  was lost in an accident 1986

Columbia was lost in an accident 2003

Leaving 3 to find homes after the shuttle program wound down.  I'll get to those in a moment.

There were also 4 other vehicles that were not used in space, and which require a little explanation because they "look like" a real shuttle.

Ambassador  was a scale model built to get an idea of the size of the vehicle before they built any "real ones."  The exterior looked right, but it had no other features.  This model was dismantled in the early 1990s and its whereabouts are unknown.

Inspiration was the first full scale mockup built.  It was a prototype of sorts, and had all the dimensions - interior and exterior right, and even had some simulated control panels.  It was sold, and is privately owned.  There is a plan for it to go on display in Downey, CA "soon"

Enterprise was an airworthy mockup.  It was used as a prototype in its flight characteristics and ability to land it on a runway.  While it didn't go into space, it was as close to the real thing you could get.  It was sold to the intrepid museum in New York.

Explorer This was a full scale replica, which I believe was built by Ringling Brothers (or perhaps it was only owned by them at some point).  It used all the blueprints  and plans in its design.  It had a flight deck with controls, a fabric covering, and some faux heat tiles.  It was on display at Kennedy space center until 2000, and I got to get the complete tour of it.  It LOOKED like a shuttle.  There was nothing about it that made it feel incomplete.  It just wasn't designed to go into space.  But if you didn't know, you might not know.  In fact, I remember people seeing it and thinking it was real.  

When Kennedy Space Center's visitor center was enhanced, this mockup was moved to Johnson and renamed Independence. I'm not sure of its ownership but NASA has it on display there, even today.  It is not a shuttle that flew in space, but, again, you wouldn't know unless you know. 

And then we have the remaining three that flew in space:

Atlantis - was left at Kennedy space center after its last mission and is housed in an exhibition building.

Endeavor - after a bidding process, this vehicle was sold to the California science center (in Los Angeles), where it is on display.

 

Discovery -  was "donated" to the Smithsonian

In summary, of the 9 total shuttles that were created from mockups to actual flight worthy machines, you have 3 that are no longer around, 3 that were sold to private organizations, 1 that is part of the Smithsonian collection, and the remaining 2 are owned by NASA.

Some politicians would like a "real one" at the Johnson Space Center, which is weird because they have one there that is as close to real as you can get.  The only other one they control is the one at Kennedy Space Center. 

The Smithsonian is not under the purview or control of NASA, and congress has no authority over their collection, so in a way its like its in a private collection.

So all of this rhetoric and angst is a big show about literally nothing.  Its stupid and makes no sense at all.  The time to have this discussion was a decade or more ago when they were deciding what to do with the shuttles. 

The cost to move any of these at this point is off the charts and serves no purpose.