Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.danslimmon.com

61–70 of 82 posts

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

#61
post #48
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Us fire code, though inspectors often don't check.

Oh that I happen to know something about - you’re making stuff up. I’ve got NFPA 72 right here if you want to point out where this alleged requirement for “multi-sensor” detector exists. In fact there are specific requirements to use only single sensor type alarms - such as near cooking equipment. You can go the the NFPA website though where the publicly facing website notes they are “recommended”. They are not and h…

I'll stand corrected.

But I'll still call you a fool if you ignore the recommendations even if you are allowed to.

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

#62
post #56
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going through something like this as a SWE at a startup. Lots of noise in our alerts and logging, so alert fatigue is a real problem. Do you have any advice on navigating this scenario (esp. negotiating with product to get monitoring and ops in a usable state)

Sure, just give your manager a copy of the bible: https://docs.google.com/document/d/199PqyG3UsyXlwieHaqbGiWVa...

Thanks, this was a very enlightening read. Getting product on board with the labor involved in implementing this is going to be a different story though.

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

#63
post #61
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that I happen to know something about - you’re making stuff up. I’ve got NFPA 72 right here if you want to point out where this alleged requirement for “multi-sensor” detector exists. In fact there are specific requirements to use only single sensor type alarms - such as near cooking equipment. You can go the the NFPA website though where the publicly facing website notes they are “recommended”. They are not and h…

I'll stand corrected. But I'll still call you a fool if you ignore the recommendations even if you are allowed to.

[deleted]

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

#64
post #62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just give your manager a copy of the bible: https://docs.google.com/document/d/199PqyG3UsyXlwieHaqbGiWVa...

Thanks, this was a very enlightening read. Getting product on board with the labor involved in implementing this is going to be a different story though.

Another good piece about negotiating with Product is written up here:

https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/#:~:text=Pursuing%2...

Ultimately, it's Product's job to decide how they want to balance reliability and feature-shipping speed. Work with them to define an SLO (like, in 99.995% of five-minute timeslices of any given month, 99% of all queries will complete within 250msec) and then graph how well you're doing when it comes to hitting it.

If you're failing to keep things above that line, Product either needs to accept lower reliability standards or invest engineering time in improving reliability. Again, it's Product's call to make. If they do want to invest in reliability, though, that's when you get to present your wish list, work out an agreement on its ranking, and find time to get the work done, even if it means slowing down the rate at which new features are shipped.

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

#65
post #61
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that I happen to know something about - you’re making stuff up. I’ve got NFPA 72 right here if you want to point out where this alleged requirement for “multi-sensor” detector exists. In fact there are specific requirements to use only single sensor type alarms - such as near cooking equipment. You can go the the NFPA website though where the publicly facing website notes they are “recommended”. They are not and h…

I'll stand corrected. But I'll still call you a fool if you ignore the recommendations even if you are allowed to.

Then call yourself a fool since you must ignore at least one recommendation as they are conflicting.

This is not even an official recommendation in the code, just some stupid public education NFPA website, which doesn’t carry the same weight and for good reason. If ionization alarms are dumb enough that the Europeans or anywhere else in the world including the IAFF don’t recommend them at all, I’m ok with just following that. Dual sensor alarms have been shown in real world testing to perform worse. I have seen no evidence they perform better, but I have seen the opposite.

Fire codes and electrical codes are as much driven by industry (both union labor and manufacturers) lobbying in the US as much as actual good evidence based practice. Someone has stuff to sell, that is all. About 20 years ago when the sensible big push was made to migrate to photoelectric alarms it wasn’t long after that a new money-making opportunity was seen by now selling these dual contraptions.

“ In June 2014, tests by the Northeastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association (NEOFPA) on residential smoke alarms were broadcast on Good Morning America program. The NEOFPA tests showed ionization smoke alarms were failing to activate in the early, smoldering stage of a fire. The combination ionization/photoelectric alarms failed to activate for an average of over 20 minutes after the stand-alone photoelectric smoke alarms. This vindicated the June 2006 official position of the Australasian Fire & Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) and the October 2008 official position of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Both the AFAC and the IAFF recommend photoelectric smoke alarms, but not combination ionization/photoelectric smoke alarms.”

From the IAFF:

Which one should you buy? The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), the largest firefighter’s union in the US and Canada has adopted an official position recommending only Photoelectric Smoke Detectors and has stated that dual sensor alarms are no longer acceptable. The technology used in Ionization Smoke Detectors creates a delayed warning in smoldering fires which can lead to loss of life. Photoelectric Smoke Alarms are more effective at warning of smoke from smoldering fires and are less susceptible of nuisance alarms. The IAFF recommends replacing all ionization, dual sensor and unknown alarms with photoelectric smoke alarms.

Notably Iowa fire code had required dual sensor alarms and had to back pedal that last year. Apparently NFPA public outreach hasn’t gotten the memo.

> Either alone will detect less than half of all house fires.

This is nonsense. Ionization sensor may detect certain fires seconds earlier according to NIST testing and those are not even the deadliest types of house fires. No reputable body would recommend PE sensors only if that were true.

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

#66
post #62
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just give your manager a copy of the bible: https://docs.google.com/document/d/199PqyG3UsyXlwieHaqbGiWVa...

Thanks, this was a very enlightening read. Getting product on board with the labor involved in implementing this is going to be a different story though.

You may have luck if you frame it in terms of an investment. Spend the time now to fix your alerts, add playbooks, improve process - because you immediately start enjoying the benefits. Less time spent on support means higher velocity. The longer you wait the more engineering time you've wasted It just takes a little patience up front as well as product and engineering collaborating.

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

#67
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thief can disable your blaring car alarm in like 30 seconds. Enough time for anyone listening to go "wow someone must have hit the panic button in their pocket" and move on with their life.

Car alarms are not useful for bystanders, they are useful for the owner of the car (who would know their alarm shouldn't be going off). That said, this makes them near-useless in most public settings.

"That couldn't have been mine, someone already shut it off" They will think, as the thief disconnects their battery and loads the car on a flatbed.

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

#68
Nothing it the article is wrong, per se, but it all seems awfully disconnected from the realities I see in monitoring and alerting?

The end advice is right: you want to build the smoke detector, not the car alarm. But … getting that done, now that's the trick. If the org has car alarms, that's the same org whose PMs will not see the "impact" of that ticket to get the monitoring made ship shape, and that ticket will be backlog-icebox-graveyard'ed.

I've had to get a number of "technical" non-technical roles to try to see that, no, the monitoring software can not automatically generate¹ metrics around your application. Yes, you have to actually instrument the code to add those!

Then that gets combined with systems that are just … not the best? at their job: Datadog has so many rough corners around statistics, where graphs will alias, graphs will change shape depending on zoom, units are a PITA or nowhere to be seen, etc. Sumo a god-awful UI — literally tabs inside tabs, and I can't copy the URL?! — and barely understand structured logging. Splunk is marginally better. Pagerduty permits only the simplest handling of events — don't limit me to a handful of tailored rules: rules are logic, logic is a function: give me WASM. And I want usable business-hours only alerts².

Self-hosted systems are perpetually met with "that's not our core focus", but nobody ever seems to convert the cost of managed monitoring/alert systems into "number of FTE that could be hired to maintain a self-hosted system".

(Oddly, the example in the article is a car alarm. Load avg. is, IMO, a useless metric. Better to measure CPU consumption and IOPS consumption, separately, or probably better, more derivative stats around the things doing the IOPS/CPU.)

¹yes, most system come with some collectors to get system-level stuff like CPU usage, etc. I mean metrics specific to your application.

²PD claims to support them, but in practice, they don't work: alerts received off hours don't alert, true … but they never alert once business resume, either! If you're in an org trying to dig itself out of a mess, you need them to not die in the low-prio pile.

(Ugh. Give me ACL systems in these systems that don't suck: PD locks the routing rules behind like "Admin", and security doesn't want to grant the rank and file "Admin", and so 80% of my devs have no idea how the system works because they're not allowed to see how the system works! Give me the ability to do a WMA business-days-only line for diurnal patterns! The list just goes on and on…)

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

#69
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can’t think of a single car that has been protected by a car alarm since they were invented. Many insurance companies offer lower premiums if you install a car alarm. So I guess they work at least a little, otherwise they wouldn't lower their premiums. It may not actually stop a thief, but it may get a thief to chose a car that doesn't have an alarm, or maybe it is just a correlation, but there is at least someth…

>Many insurance companies offer lower premiums if you install a car alarm. So I guess they work at least a little, otherwise they wouldn't lower their premiums. I can think of another reason. They run their computations- and say the insurance can be priced at $100. But hey what if we just increase to $105, and then offer a $5 discount to people who have car alarms? We get extra money (average of >100) and people thin…

if you believe insurance companies have miscalculated their risk models, perhaps there is a massive business opportunity to undercut them then.

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

#70

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.

When I hear a car alarm, I look away and hope the annoying car gets stolen as fast as possible.
Post reply on HN