Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.danslimmon.com

81–82 of 82 posts

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

#81
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…

> When the oncall gets paged, an SLO should be in jeopardy in a way that requires immediate measures > No SLO in jeopardy, or no immediate measure that needs to be taken? A little contradictory here. Maybe your "or" should've been an "and". But anyways: I can think of several scenarios for which an SLO is not in jeopardy for which you should get paged. All of which boils down to "Yes it is important for the business,…

The first one is "p and q"; the negation of that is "(not p) or (not q)".

Could you describe one of the scenarios you're envisioning?

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

#82
post #78
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally never had this problem. I don't mean that in a "so you must be wrong" way, but "there may be something up with your situation besides the smoke alarms themselves".

My guess is the landlord's invariably choose the cheapest models that check the box; or that everything out there just sucks for some reason.

One of those can lead to the other
Post reply on HN