this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
96 points (96.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

34806 readers
192 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
cat_programmer@lemmy.ml
96
No Connection, No Flush (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Truthfully, if people are stupid enough to buy into this hype they sort of deserve it as much as the morons who run those companies. Buyer beware and all that jazz.

We all know the meme of the Smart-BBQ that refuses to BBQ because of a failed update via wifi. If people are walking away from having a simple metal pit to amber some meat on it, then we are failing as a species. More vectors of failure just means more vectors of failure. Use KISS whenever possible. Don't fall for the 'for your convenience l,' trap.

No idea who would buy this. By definition networks will fail at some point. Same aslt avoiding subscription models as much as possible.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That's why I try to make dumb things smart, not replace the dumb with smart. Like, make the switch smart, not the bulb.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Along with making it backwards compatible. (Ie, control system goes down you can still operate just like a dumb system)

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago

Can't lock people into some service if you do that. They gotta have that recurring monthly revenue.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Aye. I did learn this the good old hard way.😁

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I agree with the overall sentiment, but a smart switch would be harder to change than a smart bulb most of the time. Smart switch would require electrical work to replace. A smart bulb can just be swapped. If anything the toilet is a good proxy. A smart flush means it won't manually flush. If they had done a smart fill you could just manually fill the tank with water.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. The "smart" necessarily causes some real world movent (opens a valve). Just design the physical action to be able to be performed both manually and electrically.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 3 points 2 days ago

In this post it seems as though smart is being used to mean completely replacing the thing. I think that having both smart and dumb options is ideal, but in this particular context I think the reference point is that the smart object does not allow a manual override.

[–] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

To be fair, if you had a water supply you could just chuck buckets of water down your toilet if the flush wasn’t working.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

True, but you could also add a switchbot to it. Ugly but simple and without electrical maintenance needed.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

Our ubermench tech genius overlords aren't even competent when it comes to their own native fields.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is this real?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

no idea, but the mere fact that the question can be reasonably asked says volumes