The solution is A/B testing and then looking at the resulting crash statistics. Weekly reports produced by the connected BI system should use excrutiatingly precise language like "number of {people,children,dogs,expectant mothers} {killed,saved} under <PO>'s <new idea>". A real Trolley Web Problem 2.0. /s
> What do you think the best implementation would look like?
We already had one! Dashboard indicator lamps have been an international standard (ISO 2575) since 1982.
> But it's also dangerous for a driver to run out of fuel on the highway if we didn't catch their attention.
Yes, it is. But the key word is "if". The product folks involved in making these UI/UX decisions were more concerned with whether or not they could (read: "chimp attract" for "feature parity" to "drive sales") than with whether or not they should (read: "should we be manufacturing two ton death machines that act like nannies?"). Where is the research that provides the answers to the questions "how likely is it that the driver isn't aware of how much fuel is in the vehicle?", "are our customers really as stupid as we think they are?", or even "what's the downside of training our customers to accept a more mindless state of existence while piloting giant metallic flesh-tearing bone crushers packed full of explosive hydrocarbons and squishy humans?"
> The general public though… uh oh!
You can come down from your ivory tower at any time. We have tacos down here and we all enjoy them.
To quote the late, great Lou Holtz, "they put their pants on the same way we do". I don't think there's ever been a time in all of my years on this planet that I've gotten into a car to go on a highway journey of any length and not looked at the fuel gauge. Oftentimes, my passenger will even ask me how much gas is in the tank. Glancing at the fuel gauge should be the first thing that any motor vehicle operator looks at when climbing into the captain's chair. Maybe I'm at that stage of life where I'm no longer capable of comprehending the manner in which the younger generations experience the world, but getting into an automobile and driving off without knowing how much fuel you have is like walking out the front door without confirming that your shoe laces are tied.
This constant othering of "the general public" without any research to back it up really grinds my gears, to use a contextually appropriate idiom. Please stop.
I wanted to acknowledge the user likely has above average faculties. “why would anyone use Dropbox,” “you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem”.
Zero times I’ve run out of gas. Don’t we pass someone walking with a gas can on the highway every year though? Dangerous, slightly safer if you use the fuel delivery service from AAA.
I admit I do not know quantitatively e.g. how popular that included-with-membership free 5 gallons (AAA).
Probably a million features I’d spend money on before trying to “fix” the fuel light though!
> Don’t we pass someone walking with a gas can on the highway every year though?
No. I see something like that every year on television, but not in the real world. If you've seen something like that every year, let me ask you a question: was the gas can empty or full? Gait while lugging five gallons of gas looks very different than gait while slinging around an empty can. Then, ask yourself whether or not you (or anyone you know) carries around a spare gas can in their vehicle.
Successful gaitcheck buddy, satisfying insight behind that question
Accordingly I must revise my estimate down :D _(as useful as an eyewitness!)_ I could probably commute all year without seeing a walking gas can or a tow truck filling a car on the roadside. It is difficult to estimate how long I might go before seeing either one of those things again. Maybe next time I will take notice of the vehicle model+year and driver’s demographic.
Maybe I will see an invasive fuel minder system on TV first haha
None of it matters if the controls aren’t responding. You’ll know, too, because they make that sad static beepy noise like some sort of Tactile Control Panel ACKnowledgement failure.
> I think Blizzard could have also made the player base just as happy by [...] understanding the underlying problem.
I'm reminded of the 1995 interview in which Steve Jobs elucidated the fundamental reasons that Xerox missed its golden opportunity to own the computer industry and why former PepsiCo CEO John Sculley later ultimately failed at the helm of Apple.
It's fundamentally the same issue with a number of gaming conglomerates nowadays. These companies are more interested in increasing the sales of sugar water than making great games. Perhaps, then, it's not surprising in the least to learn that former Activision Blizzard boss Bobby Kotick was on the board of Coca-Cola for a decade.
It's possible that he's taking "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" to its logical if unhealthy extreme by interpreting every ambiguous 802.11 frame as one with ill intent. However, just because he's paranoid doesn't mean there aren't misaligned people, devices, and applications out there probing networks.
It's probably a good idea for anyone to check themselves every now and then by playing Angel's Advocate just as much as they might play Devil's Advocate, but I don't think rejecting his premises out of hand with a drive-by diagnosis is all that helpful.
Fair enough, but in this case there are several massive red flags that OP was experiencing a variant of "targeted individual" delusion. (The confidence without evidence that their neighbor was a determined hacker group, using a complex zero-day to attack them at home personally, tie-ins to fear/belief of this being a widespread phenomenon).
I had a stretch of a year or so a decade ago where I was going through something very similar, down to the belief a hacker group was targeting my WiFi network despite the great lengths I was going to secure it during the setup process inside an RF shielded area, yet they still kept "getting in" somehow... so I recognize the signs.
If OP can re-read their comment later on in a different mindset, they may start to notice things that felt so certain at the time don't actually add up logically in retrospect, that's how I ended up breaking out of it eventually.
Modern 802.11 implementations are wildly complex. The output from `iw list` on a Linux system with a modern WiFi radio, a trip through the example configuration that ships with `hostapd`, or perusing the lengthy list of standards, amendments, and extensions on Wikipedia will reveal it, too.
Given the complexity of modern 802.11 protocols and the prevalence of WiFi radios in devices of all kinds, I find it well within the realm of possibilities for anyone to observe 802.11 traffic that is sufficiently ambiguous to create the confidence necessary to be a mentally workable substitute for evidence of a targeted attack. There may be a lot of evidence that could be found to refute that very same premise, though, if one knows what to look for.
> As I'm sure you're aware, glyphosate is usually only appropriate as a weed killer on your property if you're looking to kill all vegetation in/around where you spray it.
> It's a non-selective herbicide in this context, it kills everything.
It is a non-selective herbicide, but it's not a systemic herbicide. It functions by interfering with photosynthesis, but since it is minimally absorbed via root systems, it must be applied directly to the foilage. You can spray it on the ground around a plant and that plant will happily ignore it. This is why the instructions are explicit about applying directly to the foilage during sunny days when the wind is light.
As a homeowner, I loved glyphosate. It was cheap, simple, effective, and could be applied in a selective manner. It's not the best choice for getting rid of broadleaf weeds in a lawn, but I used it all the time in my gardens to kill weeds and keep the bermudagrasses out.
Roundup makes a product that looks like roll on deodorant. You literally roll it onto the leaves of the things you want to kill, and everything else remains unharmed.
I'm also a fan of glyphosphate. Nothing else works nearly as well. People who are critical of "chemicals" to control weeds have never had to deal with a weedy pavement before.
Yes! I also used glyphosate to kill things growing in and around my sidewalk, driveway, steps, and curb. I've also used a propane torch for the same purposes, but it requires more effort and cannot be applied quite so selectively. It works, though, and is a good choice for anyone who would rather use a petroleum product than an herbicide.
I looked up the product you mentioned and you're right -- it does look like deodorant! It's a gel that contains glyphosate and isopropylamine salt. Neat!
Normal propane weed burners work pretty well against weeds in areas where it's reasonable to use something like that. But they aren't good if there's anything nearby you want to protect.
Hey, I really like the idea! There are various palm trees around here, I keep fighting the unwelcome guests that show up. Unless caught really early they are basically impossible to pull and almost all of them show up in places I don't want to dig them out. A contact-only killer sounds like just the right thing.
Well that's certainly a take. Solid state relays using optoisolated MOSFETs have been around for fifty years. Mechanical relays are overkill for signal switching as in HVAC thermostats, IMHO, but you do you.
Anecdotally, I have a first generation Nest and haven't had a problem. Maybe some of the earlier hardware had fewer protection against misuse (e.g., with non-24VAC systems or otherwise incorrect installation), but that's generally the case with most new things.
Sounds like something Nest engineers would have said.
It's not "signal switching", you see.
HVAC equipment is as old and varied as you can imagine, and there is higher current than you think running through those terminals, powering all sorts of nasties, oil burner relays, damper motors, crude AC contactors causing voltage spikes etc. HVAC low voltage power is as dirty as can be.
No one took this into account, they were more concerned with making the thermostat pretty.
Nest is hardly the only thermostat out there using solid-state relays. Have you considered the possibility that they did take it into account and they deliberately chose to use SSRs instead of electromechanical relays? Have you considered the possibility that they were concerned about the impact that mechanical relays may have on the RF, especially if "there is higher current than you think running through those terminals"? Have you considered the possibility that they were worried about making the first one fatter than it already was?
In my heat pump, none of the thermostat wires directly control the contactors. They all run into a logic board that applies logic like time delays, temperature-controlled defrost cycling, and active protection lockouts for the compressor. I mean, there's a seven-segment LCD on the logic board for system troubleshooting. The air handler has a variable speed blower as well.
I understand that HVAC equipment varies wildly, but if you try to solve every possible problem or scenario and target every possible customer, you'll never make it to market.
I also understand that I am the target demographic.
reply