10 ms·

In our apartment, we have the following smart features: * Multiway light switches [0], which allow switching lights on and off from several different location

by lqet 5y ago

In our apartment, we have the following smart features: * Multiway light switches [0], which allow switching lights on and off from several different locations. * A boiler, which heats water up automatically should it become too cold. This covers lighting, heating, and supplies water at arbitrary temperatures between around 15 and 60 degrees celsius on demand, at several locations. The features do not require internet connectivity, are vendor-independent and have zero privacy issues. In the last 30 years since their installation, they have not once failed. I am at a complete loss why this should not be smart enough. The technical overhead some people introduce into their lives just to avoid pressing a button to turn of the light is mindblowing to me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiway_switching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiway_switching

sn41 5y ago
For some reason, last year I tried to rederive the circuit diagram for 3 way switches. I failed. It's actually a very clever idea, and higher numbers are fun to think about independently.
- bombcar 5y ago
  There's two way, three way, and four way, and four way can support arbitrary numbers of "ways" - because a path is always found on one flip of the switch and not on the other.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    No, GP is responding to the 'multiway switching' link in the top-level comment. This is about where, in the UK and I'm sure most developed jurisdictions, stairs for example must have a both on and off control at both ends - regardless of the state of the other switch. If they were simply in parallel as you describe, you could find yourself in the situation of going upstairs to turn it 'off up there', (because it'd need to be 'off everywhere' to be off) then realising it was already 'off downstairs' and falling back down. If they were simply in series, you could find yourself unable to turn the light on without first going downstairs at speed in the dark, because it's 'off there' no matter what you do upstairs.
    - sn41 5y ago
      yes... A way to look at 2 way switches is to look at the connections of usual circuit setups to Boolean logic. Taking two on-off switches, - parallel is or - series is and We can see that a 2 way switch is xor (or xnor depending on the setup). So now, for 3 way it feels like you have to beyond 2 state (on-off) switches... i don't have a proof of impossibility that 2 state switches cannot do 3 way switching, but in practice they indeed involve more states (multi-throw etc.)
      - OJFord 5y ago
        The closest you can get with '2 state' (by which you mean SPST - single pole single throw; SPDT is the standard way to achieve this but is usually still '2 state', it's just that 'off' (if you like) has a terminal too) switches is to add a 'don't care' state, and accept that first deliberate ('do care') switch wins. To do this you have a live rail and a switched live rail, and two SPST each end: one switch SL hot or not; the other to break its connection to the light. Open the latter for 'off', close both for 'on', close break & open SL for 'don't care'. (Then in the 'don't care' state, SL is hot iff switched on the other end, and if so is also closed through to the light.) Not legal, not (that I can imagine) desirable! Proving it is actually simple if you continue your Boolean line of thought: you can't build XOR without an inverter; an SPST switch is only a sort of 'half inverter', a mux between '0' and its input. Since it can never give you '1' from '0' input, you need a schematic for your XOR where each constituent truth table in isolation has '0' out for its '0;0' in line. Which can't be done, because clearly then you could never get '0;0=>1' overall.
    - twic 5y ago
      The key thing is that it's a double-pole, double-throw switch. You can put any number of them in series, and the circuit essentially counts the parity of the switches, so flipping any of them toggles the state of the lights.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        If it's only two switches, you only need SPDTs ('hot' & 'light' on each, throws connected, then toggling either switch takes either to the other).
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  They annoy me simply because I prefer the "up" position to mean "on" and "down" to indicate "off". Completely arbitrary on a two way (wait, they're called three way?) switches.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    Get momentary toggle switches that stay in "off" position and toggle the light when pushed to "on" position.
  - toast0 5y ago
    The switch way numbering is based on the number of terminals. A 2-way switch has two terminals and gives a closed (on) or open circuit. A 3-way switch has three terminals and gives you one terminal tied to either, but not both of the other two. A 4-way switch has four termimals and gives you two terminals which are each tied to the other two terminals and you can pick; these also give you a big headache when one switch of many fails and one circuit path is open, but many paths still work.
    - mauvehaus 5y ago
      Or in other words if you're used to seeing switches from the electronics side of the world: 2 way: SPST 3 way: SPDT 4 way: DPDT I once lived in a house with a 5(!) gang box with three of the switches wired to the upstairs hall light incorrectly and another switch upstairs. It was as big a mess as you'd imagine.
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    There are electronic three-way switches that have either a single button or an up/down rocker that always reacts the same way (up for on, down for off). These are available in "smart"/connected form or regular electronics-only form. Example here: https://www.amazon.com/Lutron-Incandescent-Single-Pole-Multi-Location-MACL-153M-RHW-WH/dp/B008X3CH70/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=lutron+three+way+dimmer&qid=1628275248&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.com/Lutron-Incandescent-Single-Pole-Multi... I agree with you and much prefer them to the traditional switches.
- sebzim4500 5y ago
  Isn't it just a few XOR gates? I'm probably missing something, but they aren't that hard to make out of AND and OR gates, or even out of transistors.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    These circuits don't run on digital logic, but are instead based on physically connecting and disconnecting an electrical connection between the live and neutral wires. This means you have to work out how to use the two switches to produce a connected circuit when only one but not both switch is in the up position. Digital logic works on lower voltage than mains voltage, and you'd need to maintain far more wires to hook up the connection (since the actual gates themselves need both power supply and ground drain wires which are separate for the inputs). Possibly also a relay to actually drive the higher voltage/amperage for the light bulb.
dharmab 5y ago
I've really liked my RainMachine sprinkler controller. It only requires internet connectivity to download weather reports; all other functions are available via LAN. Being able to turn the sprinklers on via the phone is incredibly useful for verifying repairs, finding leaks/clogs and aiming spray patterns. And it reduces water usage by deferring watering if enough rainfall has occurred.
- tk75x 5y ago
  Sprinkler systems have for years included a rain gauge that trips a signal if there is water in the tube and turns off the lawn watering. The smartphone controls would be convenient but only for very specific situations and not 99% of the time you're using the sprinkler system.
- KallDrexx 5y ago
  Why do you need internet connectivity for any of that? My sprinkler system has a sponge hooked up to the roof. If the sensor detects the sponge has too much moisture it doesn't turn the sprinklers on, because that means the soil is still saturated from recent rain.
  - dharmab 5y ago
    How long is watering suppressed by the sponge? Does the controller "remember" that the sponge triggered a few days ago when the watering day comes around?
    - KallDrexx 5y ago
      It has a permanent sensor on there, so the sensor doesn't remove the signal to not turn the automatic sprinklers on until you press the manual bypass button, or until the sensor no longer detects moisture above the set threshold. When the controller hits the scheduled time it checks with the sensor unit, if the sensor says there's too much moisture it doesn't turn them on.
      - 5y ago
twirligigue 5y ago
The motivation is probably due to Star Trek. Who wouldn't want swishy Star Trek doors? Ironically they were opened by hand from behind the scenes, at least in the first shows. Also, 'Computer, locate my husband.' 'Your husband is in the attic'. etc.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Who wouldn't want swishy Star Trek doors? all the times the crew got trapped because the doors were made inoperable by [plot device]?
  - twirligigue 5y ago
    Yes! I think TNG showed some of the problems with automated doors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdqBHExH9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdqBHExH9I
- foxyv 5y ago
  I think the most miraculous invention of the Star Trek universe is a code of ethics that people actually followed. They didn't have the endless power hungry narcissists that are endemic to every human society. It's the least probable aspect of the series even including warp drives and teleporters. Maybe they all died in World War 3?
  - twirligigue 5y ago
    Yes, although I think the absence of those power hungry narcissists (who no doubt lurk back at Star Fleet HQ) would be more down to having a relatively isolated and small group of people living and working in close proximity. Dark triad individuals can be identified early and worked around or placed where they cannot harm. An explicit code of ethics would be an Achilles heel because any such a code can be hacked or subverted.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    > They didn't have the endless power hungry narcissists that are endemic to every human society. Of course they did. Most of the Admirals were like that.
api 5y ago
> are vendor-independent and have zero privacy issues. Well there’s the problem.
ebiester 5y ago
I don't have too much "smart home", but I am really tempted by lighting. Being able to dim and change the color temperature of the light depending on the time of day is compelling. Dimming is easy conceptually, but it would mean rewiring large portions of my home. I don't know how I'd manage that with color temperature.
- mantas 5y ago
  The easy way: - connect wires behind light switch so bulb is always-on - screw in smart bulb - stick smart button on top of the hole of the old switch
- lrem 5y ago
  I have some IKEA Floalt and whatever the other pieces were called. Everything you want. No phone app. No internet connectivity. I think you can do the same with Hue.
  - FinalBriefing 5y ago
    I'm a big fan of the Hue lights. I've done the IKEA ones, and they are great, but the phone-connected options offer scheduling and automation, if you're into that kind of thing.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  I have some led strips installed with a simple remote that allows temp and dim control...I love it and don't think auto changing these with the day would be that big of an improvement than pushing the button a few times until its at where I like it.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  Lutron diva dimmer handles up to 8A of fixtures, you don’t need to rewire anything
- twic 5y ago
  Just buy a few pairs of sunglasses.
pm215 5y ago
I'm sympathetic to your overall point, but I'm impressed that you've had zero boiler failures in 30 years. I'm pretty sure that's better than the average. (Mine is about 10 years old and has needed one fairly minor part replacement to fix a failure in that time. The figure that seems to be commonly quoted for boiler expected lifespan in the UK is 15 years.)
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> The technical overhead some people introduce into their lives just to avoid pressing a button to turn of the light is mindblowing to me. I use a "smart" socket to switch off most electronic devices in my home for the night (and I tend to hide cables so it's not easy to do manually). And because it's automatic I don't have to remember switching it off and then on in the morning.
pcwalton 5y ago
> I am at a complete loss why this should not be smart enough. The technical overhead some people introduce into their lives just to avoid pressing a button to turn of the light is mindblowing to me. My leg is currently broken and I'm on crutches. At this point I'm really glad that I installed voice-controlled lighting in my house. Good reminder that things that seem trivial are very much not to people with disabilities.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  Impairments to mobility are a good topic for this discussion. The question is though, are the smart tech sufficiently better than a simple remote? --Best wishes in the healing process.
  - FinalBriefing 5y ago
    Not to say a dedicated remote isn't useful, but phones are really convenient. You generally have your phone with you, so you don't need to keep track of a separate device or devices. Unlike a TV remote, which is used near your TV, a house remote needs to be used anywhere. Everyone in your household can have their own remote (phone), so there's no passing the device around. The types of controls are varied, and a color touch screen is generally the best option. Light switches, dimmer lights, colored lights, fan controls, AC controls, etc. While I can imagine creating a remote that handles all these different devices, it's going to be a challenge to create hardware that services all these different devices intuitively.
    - JohnFen 5y ago
      > Not to say a dedicated remote isn't useful, but phones are really convenient. True, but phones present a much higher security risk than remote controls.
      - kwhitefoot 5y ago
        > phones present a much higher security risk Only because the manufacturers insist on networking the devices instead of using Bluetooth.
mumblemumble 5y ago
Our new house came with a Nest thermostat. It has some perks. Probably the main one is that we can turn the thermostat down to just warm enough to keep the pipes from freezing when we will be away from the home for a while, and then remotely turn it back up so that the house reaches a comfortable temperature just as we're arriving back home. However, I don't think that that's enough to counteract the many, many UX annoyances we've encountered with it. When it craps out or Google decides to brick it, I intend to replace it with a regular old programmable thermostat.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  I admit to being mystified by the value proposition of Nest thermostats. I have a simple programmable thermostat that I can put on a set schedule (and change if I'm going out of town and want to set everything for energy savings) and the incremental value of having something more dynamic just seems miniscule.
  - riskable 5y ago
    If you only have one thermostat getting a "smart" one doesn't really add much unless you live alone and want to take advantage of the presence features (it knows when you're home) in order to save some money. However, if you have more than one thermostat (e.g. separate downstairs and upstairs air conditioning/heating) having a "smart" thermostat is awesome! I can change the temperature on both from my phone without having to go upstairs. We also installed the additional sensors in various rooms in the house so I can control which zone gets used in determining the whole-house temperature (there's often several degrees variation between rooms in my house on hot summer days). The thermostats in my home were installed in terrible locations that don't reflect the temperature in places where people actually are so the remote sensors are fantastic.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    I installed a Nest so I could add a remote temperature sensor in my bedroom. I configured the nest to heat based on the bedroom temperature at night and the living room (where the thermostat was) during the day. Before the Nest, the bedroom would get way too hot at night because it was better insulated than the living room, making it difficult to sleep. Afterwards this was no longer a problem. Saved a bunch of energy too. Other "smart" tech: remote controlled outlets, later swapped for hue bulbs, let me flip all four of my living room lamps on from the entry way OR the hallway. Before, there was no switch at the entry way leaving me fumbling through the dark for the wall switch at the other side of the room to turn the ceiling light on. Then I'd have to turn the floor/table lamps on/off individually.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
My house makes your house look like a simpleton. I have a light that automatically comes on in the bathroom when someone enters, shuts off a few minutes after they leave. With kids, it has turned out to be an energy saver. No hub required.
- mynameisash 5y ago
  > With kids, it has turned out to be an energy saver. I wonder, though. Most folks now have LED bulbs, so being diligent about turning off lights isn't as much of a savings as when I grew up and everything was incandescent. Also, if you train kids that the lights go on and off on their own, are they more likely to just never turn anything off? My teenage kids have friends over frequently, and while my kids have been reasonably well-trained to shut things off, close doors after they go through, etc., their friends are generally pretty bad stewards of my electricity. (And it's not malice; they just don't think about it.) I like the idea of automating efficiency into the system, but there's always a human element. And that seems to require repetition.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    > I wonder, though. Most folks now have LED bulbs, so being diligent about turning off lights isn't as much of a savings as when I grew up and everything was incandescent. It's very convenient to have the light come on automatically in stairwells and lavatories. But you are right about it taking much longer to pay back. My calculation is that compared to having the LED bulb on continuously it pays back in about two years. I have several infra red motion detector bulbs in stair wells and in the pantry as well as 'radar' bulbs in several other places (these detect movement by the disturbance in a low level high frequency radio signal).
    - mynameisash 5y ago
      > (these detect movement by the disturbance in a low level high frequency radio signal). I'd never heard of this before. One of my former managers is really into Home Assistant and has done a lot with his setup, but I think all of his motion detection was IR. How's your 'radar' setup? Do you get a lot of false positives/negatives? How's the distance on its detection?
762236 5y ago
Yeah, when I think about smart homes, I think about the possibilities of materials and structure and moisture management and clean-air management and noise abatement, not gimmicks. American houses are surprisingly poorly designed and built given what humanity knows about the discipline.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Well first of all I think there's a large portion of home automation users that are tech people and just enjoy the process more than the results. There are some generally good use cases though. My most useful automation feature currently is that I can turn the air conditioner on and off in my attic office without having to walk up two flights of stairs or even be home. Sure I could leave the ac on a preset temp, but that would be a huge power waste. Then there's home security features, which are really all just a subset of home automation. The only low tech solution to this problem is basically to move, but that isn't exactly practical.

by lqet 5y ago

sn41 5y ago

For some reason, last year I tried to rederive the circuit diagram for 3 way switches. I failed. It's actually a very clever idea, and higher numbers are fun to think about independently.

bombcar 5y ago
There's two way, three way, and four way, and four way can support arbitrary numbers of "ways" - because a path is always found on one flip of the switch and not on the other.
- OJFord 5y ago
  No, GP is responding to the 'multiway switching' link in the top-level comment. This is about where, in the UK and I'm sure most developed jurisdictions, stairs for example must have a both on and off control at both ends - regardless of the state of the other switch. If they were simply in parallel as you describe, you could find yourself in the situation of going upstairs to turn it 'off up there', (because it'd need to be 'off everywhere' to be off) then realising it was already 'off downstairs' and falling back down. If they were simply in series, you could find yourself unable to turn the light on without first going downstairs at speed in the dark, because it's 'off there' no matter what you do upstairs.
  - sn41 5y ago
    yes... A way to look at 2 way switches is to look at the connections of usual circuit setups to Boolean logic. Taking two on-off switches, - parallel is or - series is and We can see that a 2 way switch is xor (or xnor depending on the setup). So now, for 3 way it feels like you have to beyond 2 state (on-off) switches... i don't have a proof of impossibility that 2 state switches cannot do 3 way switching, but in practice they indeed involve more states (multi-throw etc.)
    - OJFord 5y ago
      The closest you can get with '2 state' (by which you mean SPST - single pole single throw; SPDT is the standard way to achieve this but is usually still '2 state', it's just that 'off' (if you like) has a terminal too) switches is to add a 'don't care' state, and accept that first deliberate ('do care') switch wins. To do this you have a live rail and a switched live rail, and two SPST each end: one switch SL hot or not; the other to break its connection to the light. Open the latter for 'off', close both for 'on', close break & open SL for 'don't care'. (Then in the 'don't care' state, SL is hot iff switched on the other end, and if so is also closed through to the light.) Not legal, not (that I can imagine) desirable! Proving it is actually simple if you continue your Boolean line of thought: you can't build XOR without an inverter; an SPST switch is only a sort of 'half inverter', a mux between '0' and its input. Since it can never give you '1' from '0' input, you need a schematic for your XOR where each constituent truth table in isolation has '0' out for its '0;0' in line. Which can't be done, because clearly then you could never get '0;0=>1' overall.
  - twic 5y ago
    The key thing is that it's a double-pole, double-throw switch. You can put any number of them in series, and the circuit essentially counts the parity of the switches, so flipping any of them toggles the state of the lights.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      If it's only two switches, you only need SPDTs ('hot' & 'light' on each, throws connected, then toggling either switch takes either to the other).
JKCalhoun 5y ago
They annoy me simply because I prefer the "up" position to mean "on" and "down" to indicate "off". Completely arbitrary on a two way (wait, they're called three way?) switches.
- mopsi 5y ago
  Get momentary toggle switches that stay in "off" position and toggle the light when pushed to "on" position.
- toast0 5y ago
  The switch way numbering is based on the number of terminals. A 2-way switch has two terminals and gives a closed (on) or open circuit. A 3-way switch has three terminals and gives you one terminal tied to either, but not both of the other two. A 4-way switch has four termimals and gives you two terminals which are each tied to the other two terminals and you can pick; these also give you a big headache when one switch of many fails and one circuit path is open, but many paths still work.
  - mauvehaus 5y ago
    Or in other words if you're used to seeing switches from the electronics side of the world: 2 way: SPST 3 way: SPDT 4 way: DPDT I once lived in a house with a 5(!) gang box with three of the switches wired to the upstairs hall light incorrectly and another switch upstairs. It was as big a mess as you'd imagine.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  There are electronic three-way switches that have either a single button or an up/down rocker that always reacts the same way (up for on, down for off). These are available in "smart"/connected form or regular electronics-only form. Example here: https://www.amazon.com/Lutron-Incandescent-Single-Pole-Multi-Location-MACL-153M-RHW-WH/dp/B008X3CH70/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=lutron+three+way+dimmer&qid=1628275248&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.com/Lutron-Incandescent-Single-Pole-Multi... I agree with you and much prefer them to the traditional switches.
sebzim4500 5y ago
Isn't it just a few XOR gates? I'm probably missing something, but they aren't that hard to make out of AND and OR gates, or even out of transistors.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  These circuits don't run on digital logic, but are instead based on physically connecting and disconnecting an electrical connection between the live and neutral wires. This means you have to work out how to use the two switches to produce a connected circuit when only one but not both switch is in the up position. Digital logic works on lower voltage than mains voltage, and you'd need to maintain far more wires to hook up the connection (since the actual gates themselves need both power supply and ground drain wires which are separate for the inputs). Possibly also a relay to actually drive the higher voltage/amperage for the light bulb.

dharmab 5y ago

I've really liked my RainMachine sprinkler controller. It only requires internet connectivity to download weather reports; all other functions are available via LAN. Being able to turn the sprinklers on via the phone is incredibly useful for verifying repairs, finding leaks/clogs and aiming spray patterns. And it reduces water usage by deferring watering if enough rainfall has occurred.

tk75x 5y ago
Sprinkler systems have for years included a rain gauge that trips a signal if there is water in the tube and turns off the lawn watering. The smartphone controls would be convenient but only for very specific situations and not 99% of the time you're using the sprinkler system.
KallDrexx 5y ago
Why do you need internet connectivity for any of that? My sprinkler system has a sponge hooked up to the roof. If the sensor detects the sponge has too much moisture it doesn't turn the sprinklers on, because that means the soil is still saturated from recent rain.
- dharmab 5y ago
  How long is watering suppressed by the sponge? Does the controller "remember" that the sponge triggered a few days ago when the watering day comes around?
  - KallDrexx 5y ago
    It has a permanent sensor on there, so the sensor doesn't remove the signal to not turn the automatic sprinklers on until you press the manual bypass button, or until the sensor no longer detects moisture above the set threshold. When the controller hits the scheduled time it checks with the sensor unit, if the sensor says there's too much moisture it doesn't turn them on.
    - 5y ago

twirligigue 5y ago

The motivation is probably due to Star Trek. Who wouldn't want swishy Star Trek doors? Ironically they were opened by hand from behind the scenes, at least in the first shows. Also, 'Computer, locate my husband.' 'Your husband is in the attic'. etc.

gruez 5y ago
>Who wouldn't want swishy Star Trek doors? all the times the crew got trapped because the doors were made inoperable by [plot device]?
- twirligigue 5y ago
  Yes! I think TNG showed some of the problems with automated doors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdqBHExH9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdqBHExH9I
foxyv 5y ago
I think the most miraculous invention of the Star Trek universe is a code of ethics that people actually followed. They didn't have the endless power hungry narcissists that are endemic to every human society. It's the least probable aspect of the series even including warp drives and teleporters. Maybe they all died in World War 3?
- twirligigue 5y ago
  Yes, although I think the absence of those power hungry narcissists (who no doubt lurk back at Star Fleet HQ) would be more down to having a relatively isolated and small group of people living and working in close proximity. Dark triad individuals can be identified early and worked around or placed where they cannot harm. An explicit code of ethics would be an Achilles heel because any such a code can be hacked or subverted.
- philwelch 5y ago
  > They didn't have the endless power hungry narcissists that are endemic to every human society. Of course they did. Most of the Admirals were like that.

api 5y ago

> are vendor-independent and have zero privacy issues. Well there’s the problem.

ebiester 5y ago

I don't have too much "smart home", but I am really tempted by lighting. Being able to dim and change the color temperature of the light depending on the time of day is compelling. Dimming is easy conceptually, but it would mean rewiring large portions of my home. I don't know how I'd manage that with color temperature.

mantas 5y ago
The easy way: - connect wires behind light switch so bulb is always-on - screw in smart bulb - stick smart button on top of the hole of the old switch
lrem 5y ago
I have some IKEA Floalt and whatever the other pieces were called. Everything you want. No phone app. No internet connectivity. I think you can do the same with Hue.
- FinalBriefing 5y ago
  I'm a big fan of the Hue lights. I've done the IKEA ones, and they are great, but the phone-connected options offer scheduling and automation, if you're into that kind of thing.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
I have some led strips installed with a simple remote that allows temp and dim control...I love it and don't think auto changing these with the day would be that big of an improvement than pushing the button a few times until its at where I like it.
quickthrowman 5y ago
Lutron diva dimmer handles up to 8A of fixtures, you don’t need to rewire anything
twic 5y ago
Just buy a few pairs of sunglasses.

pm215 5y ago

I'm sympathetic to your overall point, but I'm impressed that you've had zero boiler failures in 30 years. I'm pretty sure that's better than the average. (Mine is about 10 years old and has needed one fairly minor part replacement to fix a failure in that time. The figure that seems to be commonly quoted for boiler expected lifespan in the UK is 15 years.)

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

> The technical overhead some people introduce into their lives just to avoid pressing a button to turn of the light is mindblowing to me. I use a "smart" socket to switch off most electronic devices in my home for the night (and I tend to hide cables so it's not easy to do manually). And because it's automatic I don't have to remember switching it off and then on in the morning.

pcwalton 5y ago

> I am at a complete loss why this should not be smart enough. The technical overhead some people introduce into their lives just to avoid pressing a button to turn of the light is mindblowing to me. My leg is currently broken and I'm on crutches. At this point I'm really glad that I installed voice-controlled lighting in my house. Good reminder that things that seem trivial are very much not to people with disabilities.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
Impairments to mobility are a good topic for this discussion. The question is though, are the smart tech sufficiently better than a simple remote? --Best wishes in the healing process.
- FinalBriefing 5y ago
  Not to say a dedicated remote isn't useful, but phones are really convenient. You generally have your phone with you, so you don't need to keep track of a separate device or devices. Unlike a TV remote, which is used near your TV, a house remote needs to be used anywhere. Everyone in your household can have their own remote (phone), so there's no passing the device around. The types of controls are varied, and a color touch screen is generally the best option. Light switches, dimmer lights, colored lights, fan controls, AC controls, etc. While I can imagine creating a remote that handles all these different devices, it's going to be a challenge to create hardware that services all these different devices intuitively.
  - JohnFen 5y ago
    > Not to say a dedicated remote isn't useful, but phones are really convenient. True, but phones present a much higher security risk than remote controls.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      > phones present a much higher security risk Only because the manufacturers insist on networking the devices instead of using Bluetooth.

mumblemumble 5y ago

Our new house came with a Nest thermostat. It has some perks. Probably the main one is that we can turn the thermostat down to just warm enough to keep the pipes from freezing when we will be away from the home for a while, and then remotely turn it back up so that the house reaches a comfortable temperature just as we're arriving back home. However, I don't think that that's enough to counteract the many, many UX annoyances we've encountered with it. When it craps out or Google decides to brick it, I intend to replace it with a regular old programmable thermostat.

thinkharderdev 5y ago
I admit to being mystified by the value proposition of Nest thermostats. I have a simple programmable thermostat that I can put on a set schedule (and change if I'm going out of town and want to set everything for energy savings) and the incremental value of having something more dynamic just seems miniscule.
- riskable 5y ago
  If you only have one thermostat getting a "smart" one doesn't really add much unless you live alone and want to take advantage of the presence features (it knows when you're home) in order to save some money. However, if you have more than one thermostat (e.g. separate downstairs and upstairs air conditioning/heating) having a "smart" thermostat is awesome! I can change the temperature on both from my phone without having to go upstairs. We also installed the additional sensors in various rooms in the house so I can control which zone gets used in determining the whole-house temperature (there's often several degrees variation between rooms in my house on hot summer days). The thermostats in my home were installed in terrible locations that don't reflect the temperature in places where people actually are so the remote sensors are fantastic.
- sagarm 5y ago
  I installed a Nest so I could add a remote temperature sensor in my bedroom. I configured the nest to heat based on the bedroom temperature at night and the living room (where the thermostat was) during the day. Before the Nest, the bedroom would get way too hot at night because it was better insulated than the living room, making it difficult to sleep. Afterwards this was no longer a problem. Saved a bunch of energy too. Other "smart" tech: remote controlled outlets, later swapped for hue bulbs, let me flip all four of my living room lamps on from the entry way OR the hallway. Before, there was no switch at the entry way leaving me fumbling through the dark for the wall switch at the other side of the room to turn the ceiling light on. Then I'd have to turn the floor/table lamps on/off individually.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

My house makes your house look like a simpleton. I have a light that automatically comes on in the bathroom when someone enters, shuts off a few minutes after they leave. With kids, it has turned out to be an energy saver. No hub required.

mynameisash 5y ago
> With kids, it has turned out to be an energy saver. I wonder, though. Most folks now have LED bulbs, so being diligent about turning off lights isn't as much of a savings as when I grew up and everything was incandescent. Also, if you train kids that the lights go on and off on their own, are they more likely to just never turn anything off? My teenage kids have friends over frequently, and while my kids have been reasonably well-trained to shut things off, close doors after they go through, etc., their friends are generally pretty bad stewards of my electricity. (And it's not malice; they just don't think about it.) I like the idea of automating efficiency into the system, but there's always a human element. And that seems to require repetition.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > I wonder, though. Most folks now have LED bulbs, so being diligent about turning off lights isn't as much of a savings as when I grew up and everything was incandescent. It's very convenient to have the light come on automatically in stairwells and lavatories. But you are right about it taking much longer to pay back. My calculation is that compared to having the LED bulb on continuously it pays back in about two years. I have several infra red motion detector bulbs in stair wells and in the pantry as well as 'radar' bulbs in several other places (these detect movement by the disturbance in a low level high frequency radio signal).
  - mynameisash 5y ago
    > (these detect movement by the disturbance in a low level high frequency radio signal). I'd never heard of this before. One of my former managers is really into Home Assistant and has done a lot with his setup, but I think all of his motion detection was IR. How's your 'radar' setup? Do you get a lot of false positives/negatives? How's the distance on its detection?

762236 5y ago

Yeah, when I think about smart homes, I think about the possibilities of materials and structure and moisture management and clean-air management and noise abatement, not gimmicks. American houses are surprisingly poorly designed and built given what humanity knows about the discipline.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

Well first of all I think there's a large portion of home automation users that are tech people and just enjoy the process more than the results. There are some generally good use cases though. My most useful automation feature currently is that I can turn the air conditioner on and off in my attic office without having to walk up two flights of stairs or even be home. Sure I could leave the ac on a preset temp, but that would be a huge power waste. Then there's home security features, which are really all just a subset of home automation. The only low tech solution to this problem is basically to move, but that isn't exactly practical.