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

241–250 of 282 posts

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#241

Post by mrb »

whstl wrote: post #166
mrb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely missed the part that the chime needs to be user-configurable, ie. play a custom MP3 file. You don't provide that.

I didn't miss it. I have acknowledged the requirements and have challenged them. What I am stating is that "it was in the requirements" is not a "get out of jail card" when someone says it's over-engineered. All I'm saying is that it's a very comfortable position to abstract away personal responsibility and say "I'm not over-engineering, that's what X wants", but that's exactly how we get the over-engineered Linux-pl…

You still fail my challenge: design a wireless doorbell that has a user-configurable chime (eg. MP3 file provided by user), in a way that uses less software or less hardware than mine. You couldn't.

Then I want you to justify why commercial products offering this feature have 10-100 times more code or 10 times more complex hardware just to do what my doorbell does :-)

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#242

Post by streetfighter64 »

whstl wrote: post #204
HelloMcFly wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary".

The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock.

> GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10

> You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#243

Post by whstl »

mrb wrote: post #241
whstl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't miss it. I have acknowledged the requirements and have challenged them. What I am stating is that "it was in the requirements" is not a "get out of jail card" when someone says it's over-engineered. All I'm saying is that it's a very comfortable position to abstract away personal responsibility and say "I'm not over-engineering, that's what X wants", but that's exactly how we get the over-engineered Linux-pl…

You still fail my challenge: design a wireless doorbell that has a user-configurable chime (eg. MP3 file provided by user), in a way that uses less software or less hardware than mine. You couldn't. Then I want you to justify why commercial products offering this feature have 10-100 times more code or 10 times more complex hardware just to do what my doorbell does :-)

And you're still failing the challenge of understanding my point, over and over.

The person who gave an opinion about whether this is overengineered or not was Lukeify, not me:

> You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and framework.

It's still over-engineering to a lot of people, including lukeify, regardless of there existing something worse, regardless of any "it was the requirements" defence.

Over-engineering something is fine. Especially a personal project.

Just own it.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#244

Post by OGWhales »

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.

I don't find surveillance cameras better in that regard. I think physical security can look decent too, like wrought iron window security bars can actually look quite nice imo.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#245

Post by whstl »

dxdm wrote: post #240
whstl wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just saying over and over that the over-engineering part itself can come from a "requirement", which seems to be the contentious position here. Some other people mentioned the doorbell project was over-engineering and I just agreed with them.

I agree that requirements need to be kept in check to avoid over engineering. However, I think it's hard to decide for other people far away what their requirements ought to be. So I don't agree that you can call mrb's basic wireless doorbell "overengineered" for requirements reasons alone without opening yourself up to the same scrutiny that you're applying to him.

> I agree that requirements need to be kept in check to avoid over engineering

Then we are in agreement!

The person who originally called it "overengineered" wasn't me, it was another user.

I did joke that an electric doorbel "does a similar job" but that was to demonstrate that "similar" is also a judgement call.

I am just saying that lukeify or anyone can call it overengineered from their point of view, similar to how GP called commercial products overengineered.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#246

Post by whstl »

streetfighter64 wrote: post #242
whstl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary". The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and pr…

I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean.

I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence.

Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#247

Post by anon7000 »

whstl wrote: post #243
mrb wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still fail my challenge: design a wireless doorbell that has a user-configurable chime (eg. MP3 file provided by user), in a way that uses less software or less hardware than mine. You couldn't. Then I want you to justify why commercial products offering this feature have 10-100 times more code or 10 times more complex hardware just to do what my doorbell does :-)

And you're still failing the challenge of understanding my point, over and over. The person who gave an opinion about whether this is overengineered or not was Lukeify, not me: > You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and framework. It's still over-engineering to a lot of people, including lukeify, regardle…

This is was a really unproductive thread to read. As an observer, gotta say I don’t agree with your point. Custom chimes and not having a wire are both extremely reasonable requirements to follow.

What if the default chime triggers some PTSD? (Probably doesn’t, but it could happen!) What if the landlord doesn’t want you to drill a hole through the side of your house and it doesn’t come with a doorbell?

The solution isn’t “over engineered” it’s just “engineered” (not an off the shelf product)

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#248

Post by fwip »

darrylb42 wrote: post #236
al_borland wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t had a delivery person knock in quite a long time. Package deliveries haven’t knocked in close to 20 years. I’ve even noticed DoorDash drivers don’t even knock anymore, they awkwardly stand in front of the porch and try texting. I now open the door as they are walking up to the porch to avoid that. I don’t know if it’s a policy or some kind of shared anxiety, but I find it really weird.

I had one food delivery driver call me while standing in the middle of the street. Seemed like he was afraid to approach and knock or ring. So strange.

Some people get really weird if you approach their house in a way they don't like. I imagine if that happens a few times to you as a delivery driver, you might be more cautious.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#249

Post by deepsun »

sdcfgy wrote: post #79
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…

As a former embedded systems engineer, my door bell is two long bits of wire, a bell, a push button and two C cells. My light switches are similarly complicated.

I would want my light switches to be off when I click a special button at my bed, so when I want to bed I "turn off everything, and make sure garage is closed". Unfortunately two wires don't work there.

Re: It takes 5 cloud services to hear my doorbell

#250

Post by whstl »

anon7000 wrote: post #247
whstl wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're still failing the challenge of understanding my point, over and over. The person who gave an opinion about whether this is overengineered or not was Lukeify, not me: > You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and framework. It's still over-engineering to a lot of people, including lukeify, regardle…

This is was a really unproductive thread to read. As an observer, gotta say I don’t agree with your point. Custom chimes and not having a wire are both extremely reasonable requirements to follow. What if the default chime triggers some PTSD? (Probably doesn’t, but it could happen!) What if the landlord doesn’t want you to drill a hole through the side of your house and it doesn’t come with a doorbell? The solution i…

> Custom chimes and not having a wire are both extremely reasonable requirements to follow.

I never said otherwise?

Perhaps it was unproductive because you’re assuming I’m making a point while I’m not?

My point was entirely that other people can call this “over engineered” due to feature creep.

The person who called it over engineered in the first place wasn’t me.

I appreciate that you and other people seem to want to discuss doorbells, and someone else seems to want to discuss christmas lights, but I am not really interested in that.

I am arguing a general point (“feature creep can lead to overengineering”), not this specific product.

Post reply on HN