Live data from Hacker News

Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

blog.danslimmon.com

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#21
Smoke(/fire in general) alarms are not a good example of a thing with high specificity. You perceive it that way, but what you see is the result of somebody getting paged about it and then checking (preferably physically, but also through eg. CCTV) whether there really is an emergency situation and canceling the alarm before its escalation timeout. Apparently, for typical commercial building false fire alarms are more or less an weekly occurrence.

Edit: in large scale fire alarm systems there also are rules about combinations of triggered sensors that cause immediate escalation (if there is smoke and elevated temperature in two adjacent zones, it probably is not a false alarm and such things, often it even takes into account the failure modes of the physical alarm loop wiring). This is an interesting idea for IT monitoring: page someone only when multiple metrics indicate an issue.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "this style of writing"? What aspects of the quote do you object to?

At a guess the bit 'let's learn about the base rate fallacy'.

Short, choppy sentences, lots of second-person, dropping a "punch-line" sentence to its own paragraph like they're a fucking magician revealing the card you pulled earlier. It's some kind of cross between transparent rapport-building sales-psychology crap and setting off a fireworks display to celebrate your successfully assembling a PB&J.

Like listening to a used car salesman tell a mundane story about their morning commute.

But full of unearned and over-the-top dramatic pauses.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#23
The entire car alarm industry is a scam, promoted by Republican congressman Darrell Issa. It has seriously disrupted our lives in every way imaginable and has drowned out the beauty of nature. I can’t think of a single car that has been protected by a car alarm since they were invented. They are useless and should be banned for the health and safety of mitigating noise pollution.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#24

The entire car alarm industry is a scam, promoted by Republican congressman Darrell Issa. It has seriously disrupted our lives in every way imaginable and has drowned out the beauty of nature. I can’t think of a single car that has been protected by a car alarm since they were invented. They are useless and should be banned for the health and safety of mitigating noise pollution.

> It has seriously disrupted our lives in every way imaginable

I assume this is one of those things that changes dramatically based on where you live—for me (western US), this statement seems almost comically exaggerated.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#25
post #21

Smoke(/fire in general) alarms are not a good example of a thing with high specificity. You perceive it that way, but what you see is the result of somebody getting paged about it and then checking (preferably physically, but also through eg. CCTV) whether there really is an emergency situation and canceling the alarm before its escalation timeout. Apparently, for typical commercial building false fire alarms are mor…

It was an interesting example and maybe deserved a few more caveats to actually serve the point. After all, we've all heard a fire alarm of some sort in the past year (if not the past month) but how many were actual fires? (Technically the author said smoke which helps but not really.)

Where I was expecting the author to go:

- Clearly was talking about residential smoke detectors, not commercial. That could have been explicit.

- Smoke detectors do have a high false-positive rate but almost always at the right time. A home smoke alarm going off while I'm cooking is quite different to a smoke alarm going off when I'm sleeping. To the author's point, there are very few false positives while I'm sleeping so when they happen, I'm getting up.

Speaking of the commercial context, I wonder what sort of businesses would get a lot of false alarms and how that varies across industries.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#26
post #17

Now, if you're annoyed by the false positive rate on your actual smoke alarms, go replace the one nearest your kitchen with a photoelectric type, not the standard ionization type that's cheaper, the default style installed, and ought to be illegal in homes (IMO). There's been quite a bit of research done, generally easy to find if you look, that talks about the difference and tests them, but the short summary: - Ioni…

The law requires you have both types of good reason. Either alone will detect less than half of all house fires.

Dual sensors are not and gated. While nobody will admit what algorithm they use, they detect most fires unlike the single sensor type.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#27
post #6

I need to sit down and go through the math again, I got lost in the middle somewhere. All I know is our alerts are way too noisy now to the point where they are useless.

Alert fatigue... it's common when alerts are non-actionable and it causes a lot of downtime.

We write up stories to fix them, and upper management tracks progress on completion so they are not buried in the backlog.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#28
post #8

When the oncall gets paged, an SLO should be in jeopardy in a way that requires immediate measures to be taken by a well-trained human as described in actionable terms in a linked playbook. No SLO in jeopardy, or no immediate measure that needs to be taken? Don't page the oncall; send a low-priority ticket for the service owner to investigate the next business day. Steps need to be taken, but they're mechanical in na…

In a previous life as a full-stack Engineer at a startup, this was my white whale. The state of logging, monitoring, and alerting was such that signal quality was low, and only indirect observations of the system were possible since the logging was borderline useless. The result was multiple pages per night, with each one resulting in a scavenger hunt because signal was so low that it was nigh impossible to even identify what playbook to run.

For example, the web application crashing was logged as a DEBUG statement, but starting was logged at an ERROR level. This was clearly done at some point because DEBUG generated far too much log info w/millions of active users, but some Engineer wanted to know that the app started. Gross.

I solved for this by doing a couple things. The first was to define standards for log levels, ability to correlate log statements with each other for a given request, and to define the level of context a "proper" log level should provide.

For example, FATAL = there's no way anything can work properly. These are pretty rare, but incorrect configuration values were a common culprit. ERROR indicates something, possibly transient going wrong. Every now and then, not a big deal that can wait until later, but a rapid accumulation could mean something more serious is going on. INFO contained information about the state of the system, such as general measures of activity and other signals to indicate the system is working as expected. Most of our metrics capture was instrumented based off these statements.

In terms of the messages, we rapidly evolved the quality of the messages. For something like the aforementioned configuration error, the system initially just spat out an "Unexpected error" and a module name. The first improvement then stated something like "invalid configuration value" and finally we ended up on a message that stated the value was incorrect, identified which configuration value was wrong, and had a code that referenced documentation and escalation owner.

When all was said and done, we'd reduced our downtime from hours per year to less than 5 minutes, eliminated over 95% of our pages, and reduced escalations to Engineering from several days per week to a level where it was hard to remember the last one.

As the head of Engineering, I had to fight an uphill battle against the product & sales team for almost a year to make all of this happen, but I was fully vindicated when we were acquired and our operational maturity was lauded during the due diligence process.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#29

The entire car alarm industry is a scam, promoted by Republican congressman Darrell Issa. It has seriously disrupted our lives in every way imaginable and has drowned out the beauty of nature. I can’t think of a single car that has been protected by a car alarm since they were invented. They are useless and should be banned for the health and safety of mitigating noise pollution.

For poor people whose ability to live depends on having a car, car alarms must be at least sort of useful to know if your car is being stolen at night. I’m sure they’re just a noisy inconvenience to the wealthy though.

Re: Car alarms and smoke alarms: tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity (2012)

#30
post #26
post #17

Now, if you're annoyed by the false positive rate on your actual smoke alarms, go replace the one nearest your kitchen with a photoelectric type, not the standard ionization type that's cheaper, the default style installed, and ought to be illegal in homes (IMO). There's been quite a bit of research done, generally easy to find if you look, that talks about the difference and tests them, but the short summary: - Ioni…

The law requires you have both types of good reason. Either alone will detect less than half of all house fires. Dual sensors are not and gated. While nobody will admit what algorithm they use, they detect most fires unlike the single sensor type.

Where does the law require both types? I'm not aware of any housing codes specifically requiring photoelectric types, and any house I've looked at, including mine, came with purely ionization types. Though it's been a few years, and it may have changed recently - this is less of a niche concern lately.

As for dual sensors and gating... do you actually trust your life to "nobody will admit what algorithm they use"?

My house has all the smoke detectors wired together (they're on an AC circuit, with battery backup, with a signal line running between them all), so I have some photoelectric and some ionization, depending on where in the house they are.

Post reply on HN