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

It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

blog.vghaisas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#201

Post by dxdm »

whstl wrote: post #194
streetfighter64 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godwin's law was invoked quickly. It's not very hacker spirit to hear a story of somebody putting together a cool hardware solution to do something they wanted, and then complain that they wanted the wrong thing. > check out my hand-embroidered curtains, it's got exactly the flower pattern I wanted > yeah well you shouldn't want flowers on your curtains, just buy plain white ones from the store

I'm not really passing judgement on the project itself, or its validity, and I think it's cool. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying "I over-engineered this" or "I hand made this". I do this all the time myself... I'm just pointing out that "it's in the [my own] requirements" in this case does not really make something "not over engineered".

Where would you draw the line for a sufficiently simple implementation of sufficiently simple requirements? A door knocker? A door?

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#202

Post by al_borland »

bvan wrote: post #187

This is analogous to what AI is turning into. Pretty soon, some folks won’t be able to tie their shoe laces without tech.

Not AI related, but I’ve seen kids unable to tie their shoes because technology, in the form of elastic laces or various other laceless designs, have made it so the skill didn’t become a requirement.

I told a 10 year old to tie the strings on a hood like he’d tie a shoe (after he just jumbled the strings together in a failed attempt to get them out of the way instead of making any kind of knot). He told me he didn’t know how. I was a bit shocked, since at that age I was learning all kinds of different knots for fun, and the shoelaces seem like gateway into knots.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#203

Post by whstl »

dxdm wrote: post #201
whstl wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really passing judgement on the project itself, or its validity, and I think it's cool. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying "I over-engineered this" or "I hand made this". I do this all the time myself... I'm just pointing out that "it's in the [my own] requirements" in this case does not really make something "not over engineered".

Where would you draw the line for a sufficiently simple implementation of sufficiently simple requirements? A door knocker? A door?

I don't think there should be a line.

But it should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others.

It should also be considered ok to call things over-engineered. OP himself did.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#204

Post by whstl »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #200
whstl wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really passing judgement on the project itself, or its validity, and I think it's cool. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying "I over-engineered this" or "I hand made this". I do this all the time myself... I'm just pointing out that "it's in the [my own] requirements" in this case does not really make something "not over engineered".

Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?

It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all.

Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better.

GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#205

Post by pier25 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #171

The part where it worked for 18 months before something software broke is perfect 2020s tech.

I had a smart plug by Kasa that I used to turn on the espresso machine from bed. It all worked offline via wifi. One day out of the blue the app required you to create a user to be able to use it and that was the end of it. This should be illegal.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#206

Post by al_borland »

swiftcoder wrote: post #170
ifwinterco wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical stuff (window bars and a security door) is much, much more effective for that logic. Burglars know they’ll probably be on CCTV somewhere anyway but nobody in their right mind is trying to smash through a security door or saw through some window bars when there’s a house up the street that doesn’t have them. Obviously there are downsides (cost, aesthetics) but those solutions actually work, I’m skeptical that…

> Physical stuff (window bars and a security door) is much, much more effective I've lived in a couple of countries where everyone has bars on all their windows due to perceived (in some case correctly, in other cases not) crime levels. It's... not great? I'd much rather live somewhere where I don't need to live in a prison compound.

When I’m looking to move to a new area, I check out how much security the local banks have. The more there is between the customer and the bank teller, the worse the area. Comcast offices can also be a good litmus test for this. When McDonalds has bullet proof glass… you probably don’t even want to stop to eat there, let alone live there.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#207

Post by DarmokTanagra »

talkin wrote: post #172
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals don't just rob random houses. If they are going through the trouble its because they know there is something of value in there and a camera is not going to stop them. A camera is only going to dissuade crimes of opportunity, its basically just fancy lock.

> Criminals don't just rob random houses False, opportunity theft is the most common form. Better doors/windows/locks help the most, and help against both opportunistic and targeted.

Perhaps where you live, in my country petty theft is extremely rare.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#208

Post by edude03 »

mrb wrote: post #49

I am super sensitive to over engineering. For my doorbell I wanted something that lets me play a custom bell sound. You would be surprised that 99% of the solutions out there are complete over engineered stacks that depend on wifi devices, Internet access, connecting to various cloud services... So I built my own: a basic wireless button sends a radio 433 MHz signal, and my receiver is plugged inside the house and tr…

I think as a hacker/engineer type you’re more aware of what’s possible and because of that you expect more from things in your life. The flip side of that is that it makes features most people would never think of feel like table stakes and combined with the ability to build your own solution - IMO leads to over engineering.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#209

Post by dxdm »

whstl wrote: post #203
dxdm wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would you draw the line for a sufficiently simple implementation of sufficiently simple requirements? A door knocker? A door?

I don't think there should be a line. But it should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. It should also be considered ok to call things over-engineered. OP himself did.

Of course you can call things over engineered, but seem to want to include questioning the requirements, specifically also those of the example we're talking about.

Once you start that, you also need to stop somewhere. For example, we could even question the need for a door in the first place. Not saying that we should, but if you want to take over defining other people's requirements, you're putting this on yourself.

So if you don't want somebody else to call you out for over engineering somebody else's requirements, where do you stop?

It's not an enviable position to be in. :)

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#210

Post by buran77 »

whstl wrote: post #191
buran77 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't overthink it. If you judge the engineering then you look at how the implementation reflects the requirements, not whether the requirements are good. Over-engineered simply means there is much more in that implementation than the baseline needed to tick off the requirements.

I disagree. IMO this mindset is not how you make good engineering or good products. As an engineer (the traditional kind), I don't really appreciate nor can I afford the "not my problem" attitude of doing engineering in a vacuum, because in the end it's my responsibility.

> As an engineer (the traditional kind)

Isn't everybody? Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good. Not for any objective engineering reasons, just because you think so.

I have a simple question that any engineer can answer in a heartbeat. Is a Christmas tree light installation with a bunch of series connected incandescent lights (I'm talking literally one of those classic Christmas lights set with absolutely no extra components or complexity beyond wires, bulbs, and plug) over engineered? Could you do it with even less engineering?

Post reply on HN