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

111–120 of 266 posts

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#111

Post by gherkin0 »

wpietri wrote: post #87
JupiterMoon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the desire to add smart technology to the smoke alarm. Once properly installed a smoke alarm should be interacted with when (1) there is a fire, (2) the battery is running flat. False alarms pretty much mean you've installed it wrong.

A friend of mine, a great cook, regularly performs what she refers to as The Dance of Smoke Alarm Supplication, wherein she and a broom jointly try to persuade the alarm gods that everything is fine. When she heard that there was a smoke alarm that would pop up a notification on her phone first so she could mute it with zero shrieking, she was very excited. It may be that her landlord installed it wrong, but landlord…

> A friend of mine, a great cook, regularly performs what she refers to as The Dance of Smoke Alarm Supplication, wherein she and a broom jointly try to persuade the alarm gods that everything is fine. When she heard that there was a smoke alarm that would pop up a notification on her phone first so she could mute it with zero shrieking, she was very excited.

The Dance of Smoke Alarm Supplication can still apply to smart smoke alarms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#112

Post by johnminter »

wpietri wrote: post #87
JupiterMoon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the desire to add smart technology to the smoke alarm. Once properly installed a smoke alarm should be interacted with when (1) there is a fire, (2) the battery is running flat. False alarms pretty much mean you've installed it wrong.

A friend of mine, a great cook, regularly performs what she refers to as The Dance of Smoke Alarm Supplication, wherein she and a broom jointly try to persuade the alarm gods that everything is fine. When she heard that there was a smoke alarm that would pop up a notification on her phone first so she could mute it with zero shrieking, she was very excited. It may be that her landlord installed it wrong, but landlord…

Ah, the Smoke Alarm Supplication Dance. Great term. My wife and daughter had the same issue. They like to cook and can tomato sauce. Our smoke alarm would go off very easily - lots of false positives. One day my wife is vacuuming the hall and the motor in the vacuum cleaner overheats and starts putting out thick, black smoke right under the smoke alarm. Nothing from the smoke alarm... Needless to say we quickly replaced both the vacuum cleaner and the smoke alarm and made certain to get one with dual sensors...

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#113

Post by _asummers »

speleding wrote: post #101
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…

I renovated my house a few months ago and also had to decide whether or not to go "smart" on the lighting, switches thermostat, etc. Did a lot of research and came to the same conclusion that there was little benefit and large chance that I would have obsolete technology next year. However, I did go for an electronic doorlock (with finger print reader) and after just a few months I can not imagine ever going back to…

In general, fingerprints should not be treated as a password or key. They unfortunately are being used as such by Apple and Samsung and these fingerprint locks. A key is something you keep private, but you leave your fingerprint on everything, including the doorknob you're trying to keep locked. Additionally, once compromised, the key cannot be revoked. I don't doubt it is much more convenient, but I would personally never trust the security of my home to one. The one area that electronic locks clearly win out on is with auditability. You can show when the door was opened and by whom, if they each have separate keys. And when a key is lost, that specific key can be revoked, rather than changing the entire lock.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#114

Post by BurritoAlPastor »

tw04 wrote: post #99
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…

That's why you make sure they use one of the standards based protocols, then buy something like a smartthings hub which is open enough that you can write your own apps if the vendor decides to abandon theirs. You don't need the vendor to update their app, you just need them to operate with the hub, and then talk to the hub directly to control the device.

Ah, yes. Not only do I pay $50 for my light switches, I also have to write my own interface before they behave differently from $10 light switches. What an incredible value proposition.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#115

Post by narrowrail »

wpietri wrote: post #82
narrowrail wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been considering replacing my media PC with a Roku, so I'm curious why you would call them "empty plastic boxes" considering the Roku can stream from my local server and I block all outbound requests at my router (firewall). The advantage I see is the 5W power draw vs. my current 20W. I'm also unclear on what interoperability would mean for one of these devices. I don't think 2 Roku on the same network have any…

I'm not krisdol, but I presume the "empty plastic boxes" is a reference to the fact that the amount of hardware necessary to stream video is now miniscule. My Roku is the size it is not because it needs to be that big to hold components, but so that it looks substantial to consumers and doesn't get lost in a ball of cables. And interop for me would mean that instead of N proprietary platforms that must be targeted se…

I agree with your take, but I don't see that happening; I prefer to take care of media acquisition on my own because I don't trust these companies to do any differently than the media companies they seek to, ultimately, replace.

Roku has the private channel feature that I think makes it more interesting than the other players, and I wish more effort was exerted to explore the possibilities with private channels. Have you used this feature?

It seems to me that if the streaming providers had better APIs, the device makers could make use of them; I imagine Amazon's devices have access to private APIs that Roku does not.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#116

Post by deelowe »

tw04 wrote: post #99
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…

That's why you make sure they use one of the standards based protocols, then buy something like a smartthings hub which is open enough that you can write your own apps if the vendor decides to abandon theirs. You don't need the vendor to update their app, you just need them to operate with the hub, and then talk to the hub directly to control the device.

This makes it sound like I'd need to be sysadmin/devops for my home. I get paid to do that sort of thing at work. I certainly don't want to be doing it at home.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#117

Post by martin-adams »

tedunangst wrote: post #64
hessenwolf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 'unfair'. (are you implying I was unduly harsh on the gent?) Let's take sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Because of SIDS, it is now recommended in the videos I watched yesterday, that infants be put down on their backs with no pillows in the parents' bedroom but not in their bed. This has no bearing on prenatal care or wealth, but has an effect, which could probably be enhanced by a smart baby monitor.

It's not possible to lay an infant on its back if it's wearing a dumb onesie?

The point as I see it being got at here is that changes in the approach to raising a child has resulted in fewer SIDS over the past 30 years [1].

Introducing new technology, or techniques, regardless of how absurd it appears, needs the data to identify whether it really does have an improvement in child safety.

Simply saying my generation (born in the 80's) turned out just fine so why change is actually incorrect. The rate of deaths was higher in the 80's compared to now and changes were made in advice that has reduced death rates.

Technology could be used to reduce this further, but we don't know until we have the data. Do I think it's likely that an IoT onesie will make a difference? Not really, purely because the cost and adoption rate would probably make it impossible to detect its impact as safety concious parents who would buy it would probably have mitigated most risks anyway. The chance of getting a significant number of would-be SIDS outcomes to be using such a device would, in my opinion, be extremely small.

[1] http://www.babywill.org/sids-information/what-is-sids/sids-s...

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#118

Post by Spooky23 »

Home automation always was and continues to be a puttering around hobby or suckers game.

A friend bought a house that had a late 70s state of the art home system. Central radio/vinyl/8track player, intercoms, and a broken CCTV setup. Also cool stuff like central vacuum.

The big difference between that house and the modern gadgetry is that the 70s stuff was hard wired and still works. None of the IoT crap that is on the market now will be completely unusable in a decade.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#119

Post by tptacek »

martin-adams wrote: post #117
tedunangst wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not possible to lay an infant on its back if it's wearing a dumb onesie?

The point as I see it being got at here is that changes in the approach to raising a child has resulted in fewer SIDS over the past 30 years [1]. Introducing new technology, or techniques, regardless of how absurd it appears, needs the data to identify whether it really does have an improvement in child safety. Simply saying my generation (born in the 80's) turned out just fine so why change is actually incorrect. Th…

Again: the dominant factor in reducing infant mortality in the US has been prenatal care. Infant mortality in the sense described upthread is not about SIDS.

The latter half of your comment is a bit hand-wavy. "Purely" because of adoption numbers? What does a "smart onesie" actually have to do with SIDS? Companies have been selling ever-more-complicated baby monitors to parents for years using fear of SIDS, but SIDS is not a problem of monitoring.

Re: The Internet of Way Too Many Things

#120

Post by joshstrange »

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…

I agree with nearly everything you have said except for:

> and don't get me started on the smart baby monitors, etc... if my siblings an I were brought up just fine in the 80's without being in a "smart onesie", I'm sure we can do just as fine today.

I even agree that the baby monitor mentioned is a little over the top (I don't care for the lights/music/coffee aspect) but it's important not to write things off just because "I was raised just fine without X". That logic doesn't hold for most things. And for high-risk babies that onesie is probably multitudes of times cheaper than expensive medical equipment to do the same level of monitoring.

(Sad Personal Anecdote Below)

My youngest sister died when she was very young (<2 mo old) due to a medical condition (birth defect). Now this isn't to say that this product would have saved her life. In fact I'm nearly 100% positive it wouldn't have. My parents were already awake due to me waking up from a bad dream and so my mom caught her stopping breathing probably almost immediately and we lived next door to a doctor who was over within minutes before she was rushed off to the hospital. She still died but I can't help but think that while she couldn't be saved there are other babies and young children out there that could be saved from such a device. Also there is nothing to say that constant monitoring wouldn't have caught signs of this a little earlier allowing my parents enough time to get her to professionals. All I'm saying is don't write off this just because you "got by fine without it".

Post reply on HN