Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet of Way Too Many Things

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 266 posts

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#31

Post by aluhut »

robmcm wrote: post #24
antr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right... but a onesie that "knows that when a baby wakes up, the parents will, too -- so it turns on lights and music and even makes the coffee." ... is of no use to fight infant mortality.

Mimo monitors breathing, temperature and sleeping position. All of these are factors in cot death according to easily searchable research.

I'm pretty sure I would be the first to put all kinds of sensors onto my baby, it's toys and environment but I'm also pretty sure I would check on that stuff AND on the baby myself. Also considering the security problems.

Looks to me like a hell lot of problems added to what I would already have with the baby alone. My parents had me in their room and I survived. Others died. Maybe that's just the way it is.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#32

Post by tptacek »

hessenwolf wrote: post #10
antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-child-and-teen... Looks to me like infant mortality (under age one) has halved between 1977 and 2013. I understand the argument of "it worked fine for me", but, well, on a portfolio basis, you and I were dying a bit faster back then. Outpatient care is a big field these days. Something that, with extremely little effort, can reduce the odds of death or disability, is quit…

That's not fair. He didn't say "children should be raised to exactly the same standards as they were in 1977". He said "we were raised without the benefits of smart-onesies, and we came out fine". Those are two different arguments.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the bulk of the decline in US infant mortality is attributable to improved prenatal care. If you want to keep arguing about the value of modernizing parenting, can we start with statistics broken out by income level? Has infant mortality among the children of well-off parents declined sharply as well? If modernization is saving children, that statistic should reveal it.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#33

Post by tptacek »

tinco wrote: post #23
antr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right... but a onesie that "knows that when a baby wakes up, the parents will, too -- so it turns on lights and music and even makes the coffee." ... is of no use to fight infant mortality.

That's not all it does, you just picked out the ridiculous part. If you'd quote the entire piece on that onesie you'd see that it actually has a bunch of features that very well might reduce infant mortality. The author also invokes 'helicopter parenting' as if it applies to taking care of babies. Helicopter parenting is when parents disrupt other caregivers during the care for their child, it has nothing to do with…

The article addresses this point directly, but because you aren't a parent, it may have gone over your head. The real problem with a smart-onesie isn't simply that it's useless, but that infants are restless, and any signal this device carries will be overwhelmed by the noise. When you're the parent of an infant, your #2 goal (after "keep the baby alive") is "ruthlessly attend to your own rest needs".

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#34

Post by oblio »

octo_t wrote: post #28
mreiland wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a problem? That sounds like a made up solution. For the vast majority of people, simply touching something that someone else in your home has touched isn't going to cause you any sort of problems.

Possibly not in the home, but in the office or public places? Definitely.

Yet we use public transportation in many parts of the world and few bad things have happened. We use door handles everywhere. Etc.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#35

Post by freehunter »

guybrushT wrote: post #27
antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

One of the companies that is solving this very problem is Xiaomi. Their method is quite crude - that is, they make everything themselves. But the end result is that everything they make - from an air purifier to a TV - is connected and operated via a similar / familiar OS called MIUI. They give away their phones for very cheap, because the phone is the Trojan horse - it is the remote control for all the other devices…

Yup, Xiamoi makes everything interoperable by making it themselves. And Apple makes HomeKit. And Google makes their own. And Microsoft makes their own. And HP makes their own. And...

See the problem?

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#36

Post by tptacek »

robmcm wrote: post #24
antr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right... but a onesie that "knows that when a baby wakes up, the parents will, too -- so it turns on lights and music and even makes the coffee." ... is of no use to fight infant mortality.

Mimo monitors breathing, temperature and sleeping position. All of these are factors in cot death according to easily searchable research.

There is no evidence I've found that any monitoring device improves SIDS outcomes, and there is evidence that it doesn't. Forget about the smart onesie: it's difficult to justify even classic baby monitors as a medical intervention.

The decline in SIDS over the last 2 decades tracks the education of parents not to put infants to sleep on their stomachs.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#37

Post by freehunter »

hessenwolf wrote: post #10
antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-child-and-teen... Looks to me like infant mortality (under age one) has halved between 1977 and 2013. I understand the argument of "it worked fine for me", but, well, on a portfolio basis, you and I were dying a bit faster back then. Outpatient care is a big field these days. Something that, with extremely little effort, can reduce the odds of death or disability, is quit…

Same argument as "we rode on the back dashboard with no seat belts as a kid and we survived". Completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of kids who didn't survive. Because the ones who were killed doing something dangerous aren't around anymore to tell you not to do it. Doesn't mean we should roll back the clock on car safety.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#38

Post by Zigurd »

Home automation is the least likely IoT category to succeed, at first, anyway. The low hanging fruit is in things like public infrastructure monitoring by instrumenting the municipal maintenance and transit fleet. Many enterprises are going to find they can do with a lot fewer desks if they instrument their work environment and spread workers out into co-working spaces.

The people instrumenting these environments are also more-capable of calculating the benefits. Without analysis, it's just shiny toys.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#39

Post by Duhck »

As someone actively working in the smart home space, I refrain from calling our business IoT for exactly this reason. I've even challenged the team to stay away from smart home. We do very little "smart" home stuff and instead rely on cleverly designing a set of devices that don't require an application or future technology (AI, voice control) to work properly. They also don't take up space in your home and combine the functionality of two or more devices into one.

I'd like to think I've been a bullhorn for the "IoT is stupid" movement, but I think the author did a great job of calling it out as well.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#40

Post by Zigurd »

guybrushT wrote: post #27
antr wrote: post #2

I just bought a home, and just started a considerable renovation. I'm putting in new water pipes, new electrical wiring, etc. I thought of putting "smart" devices (i.e. switches, alarms, thermostats, etc.) given the "advantages" these promise. After considerable research, it's not worth the hussle or money. Let's put aside the fact that these are considerable more expensive, and won't breakeven in years (some devices…

One of the companies that is solving this very problem is Xiaomi. Their method is quite crude - that is, they make everything themselves. But the end result is that everything they make - from an air purifier to a TV - is connected and operated via a similar / familiar OS called MIUI. They give away their phones for very cheap, because the phone is the Trojan horse - it is the remote control for all the other devices…

There is a whole different dynamic to these devices in China. Air quality, water quality, etc. are part of middle class lifestyle in China, and many people do not trust the authorities to keep these parameters within spec. Multiple air filters in an apartment are common, and monitoring the performance of these devices is an obvious interest to their owners. This is a much more compelling home automation story than thermostats or smoke alarms that should be mostly invisible in the home environment.
Post reply on HN