That means Zigbee and Zwave and use them with Home Assistant. There are many locks and devices which support either. There's a learning curve in the beginning, but once you set it up correctly not only you get privacy and control your own devices, you also get far more options for automations and useful or plain cool things in general.
This is fine for the HackerNews crowd, but most people aren’t going to have the skills and/or time to run a local setup, and it’s not unreasonable for them to want smart lock functionality.
If you buy a device that works over Zigbee or Zwave, a layperson doesn't need to have the skills to run a local setup because some third party can always come in and help with the integration (either some third party cloud solution or contractors who can come to your house and set up the local solution for you)
Exactly. Most of those IoT products will connect directly with Apple Homekit, Google Home, Smartthings, etc. without some other hub, app, cloud. Which makes it likely it can be kept working regardless of what that company does. You don't have to go full local setup to avoid the most proprietary IoT devices.
Complexity is also about empire building and job security.
If every dev took the path of least resistance, and did the easiest thing that did its task, we would lose 80% of all tech jobs. This would only funnel more money to billionaires and share holders instead of the employees. Why would we want that.
This is an underrated reason why startups can be successful. Many large and even mid-sized companies' employees are encumbered in complexity indirectly because they need to engineer something to justify their jobs. I think a lot of devops is basically this sort of persona because if devops really did their jobs correctly, we shouldn't see so many devops jobs.
Very poor countries also have exceptional public water wells where people can draw water with buckets.
That is because those are inconvenient, slow but necessary amenities in the areas where most people are poor. And that is why US currently doesn't need either.
Source: lived in a poor country with exceptional public transit and didn't ever drive till 29; and carried water with buckets from a well only a block away for an aggregate of 1-2 years.
But rich cities can also have great public transit. New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Singapore... in fact rich cities with transit as awful as the Bay Area seem to be the exception, not the rule
They are all much more dense than the bay area, and I don't get the sense that many people want them to be denser other than, again, for affordability reasons.
I don't have data but in Moscow where I'm from the typical well to do thing was moving to a "cottage village", something between a suburb and a gated community, despite good transit and horrendous traffic. In the 90ies it was stereotyped as a nouveu riche thing but in 2010s I even knew a senior dev who did it as it became more affordable. When I was visiting Tokyo iirc most local devs I was working with lived in the city but their manager lived in an outlying less dense area, since presumably he could afford it). I get a sense that people are likely to move to have more space and privacy, unless it's locally difficult or expensive.
Equating having access to public transport with lack of running water is wild to me. A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport.
> A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport.
You've mixed a subjective measure "rich country" with an objective one "rich people." I can't think of any situation where people of greater means accept more limitations.
Anyways do you have any examples of "rich countries" that have solved this problem?
Good public transport, in a city at least, doesn't feel like a limitation! It's rather convenient, really. There is no problem with making rich people use it, they do it voluntarily.
I think it does genuinely feel like a limitation in a lot of cases, and I think it's unhelpful to pretend it doesn't. However it also is very convenient in others.
Everything has it's place, in an ideal area if I was wanting to go a short-medium distance I'd go on a bike, if I wanted a drink or to carry more than practical on my bike or to go a medium length I'd take public transport, and if I wanted to take a lot of stuff, or go in a time sensitive manner, or not want to worry about the last bus, or go somewhere rural I'd take the car.
I don't think good public transport can replace cars in all situations, but it is an extremely good option to have for situations that suit it (which for most people is likely most, but probably not all, of the time).
No, not absolutely all situations. But take my situation - I live in Berlin and I use my car less than once a month. A major reason to drive is to have a car at the destination. I've also had streaks where I drove to the supermarket every couple of weeks, but I haven't done so in months. Main upside is that I can buy whole cases of beer and a bunch of other drinks and heavy stuff, less trouble carrying. Otherwise, the closest supermarkets are about five minutes by foot.
Yes, because it's faster. Doesn't really matter if you can afford a 400,000 dollar Rolls Royce if you're stuck in downtown London traffic for 30 minutes. You could've just taken the underground in 5...
They sure do. The ones that can't or don't want to hire a personal driver or go everywhere by taxi anyway. Because driving yourself isn't much fun in a city and you need to be sober every time, too.
I'm skeptical. For nearly any definition of "rich", someone can afford to take an Uber/Lyft/taxi everywhere, at least.
I think the real reason your average rich person would take transit is because in some places, at some times of day, it's significantly faster than driving. But I do believe there's some -- probably fairly small -- subset of rich people who ride public transit simply because they prefer to.
Yes rich people take the Tube/trains in London. It's convenient and often faster than driving, especially at rush hour. Basically everyone uses the Tube except for like, royalty or billionaires or whatever. In fact, people pay a premium (in rent) to live close to Tube stations.
Also, planes are a form of public transport and rich people take them all the time.
This part of your earlier comment confuses me:
> I can't think of any situation where people of greater means accept more limitations.
Probably not billionaires, but millionaires do. I know multi millionaires (6-7 figures) in the US who ride public transportation in places like SF and NYC.
I'm not doing that. I am equating on a spectrum not being able to, as a society, afford running water infrastructure to not being able to afford cars and infrastructure.
Note that this includes environmental arguments - saying that 8bil people cannot all live like people in Houston may be true but it's basically saying we cannot afford to have nice things.
But the thing is US, and especially major cities, currently can afford them!
Why would "rich people take public transit"? Except for extremely dense areas, driving is faster especially accounting for overhead; goes exactly where one needs, any time; and is way more comfortable. Only those who prefer extremely dense areas and also cannot live close to work/amenities (kind of the point of density) would want it.
Decisions in the US are made by big tech lobbyists, who want the supply of semi-indentured labor who can't jump jobs at a moment notice to continue as usual.
The hardware/software industry needs to be regulated by levying a carbon tax and pollution tax.
The first iPhone/Android were great innovations. And subsequent iterations occasionally added better features -- but not each year.
Phones are one example, but all we are doing is shoving more carbon the air, putting more trash on the streets and land fills, more water for datacenters, more plastic and chemicals in the oceans and our bodies.
This is understandable, but does not always make sense. After all, these towns were created by European immigrants who left their homeland of hundreds of years, their language, customs, foods, climate etc for a better opportunity. These towns had sizable black populations who left southern towns for the same reasons.
Before Europeans, north america was settled by many different tribes who had migrated from eurasia . Not to mention different groups of humans also migrated from Africa all over the world, because they saw good reason to do so.
At some point you have to cut your losses, or seek a better life. Not saying it is easy, but this option should be pointed out to anyone in untenable situations.
That means Zigbee and Zwave and use them with Home Assistant. There are many locks and devices which support either. There's a learning curve in the beginning, but once you set it up correctly not only you get privacy and control your own devices, you also get far more options for automations and useful or plain cool things in general.