MystikIncarnate @ MystikIncarnate @lemmy.ca

Some IT guy, IDK.

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

2,462

Joined

2 yr. ago

In my experience they don't. I didn't even have a hue account when I set mine up... Maybe that's changed, but I wouldn't know. I set up an account because I wanted to control the bulb from outside my house, in case I forget to turn off the lights when I head out.

There's also three generations and at least two different series of light bulbs with the "hue" brand. One series is entirely Bluetooth, which doesn't require the hue hub; I only have experience with the hub-required bulbs, and I'll say that they can be a bitch to get working if you need to associate the bulbs to the hub. I set up a table lamp next to my hue hub, and sat there, phone in hand, adding the bulbs by screwing them into the lamp and going through the process. If the bulbs were too far away, pairing would fail.

It was a pain, but once they were in the app, I never had to think about them again (besides the usual of turning them on/off/Green/Blue/purple/whatever...

Yeah, it's not all roses, but compared to dealing with home assistant and using a ZigBee or zwave dongle, and all of that stuff, it's downright a walk in the park by comparison. I would assume the average consumer could set up a hue system in an afternoon. It would cost them a grand or more to do a portion of their home, but it wouldn't take too long to do. Then they would work, problem free for 8-12 years or more, then whoops, the bulbs start dying and you have to fork out a hefty amount to replace them.

It's not cheap and it's not plug and play, but once you get it put together it "just works".

Navigating the array of what's available and trying to figure out which ones work with which system is probably the most painful part of the process IMO.

Hue hue hue hue

I don't like Wi-Fi bulbs. I work in tech and I know how much noise is associated with Wi-Fi networks. To me, it is foolish to intentionally add to that when other options exist. I'm okay with ZigBee but I'll probably go with zwave when I replace the hue bulbs.

I just want everything off of the WiFi channels as much as possible.... Except actual Wi-Fi things like TVs, laptops, phones, tablets.... That sort of thing (and even then, I want the TVs to be wired of I can figure a way to do it).

It's bad enough ZigBee overlaps with 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi, creating interference, Wi-Fi IoT stuff just takes it to a new level.

Anyways, I'll get off my soap box.

Two big things, IMO, contribute to reliability issues with IoT stuff: relatively inexpensive (and pretty trash) Wi-Fi in the IoT devices, and relatively inexpensive (and also pretty trash) Wi-Fi in a lot of consumer wireless routers.

To put it bluntly: if you know enough about tech to have a network capable of hosting Wi-Fi IoT devices reliably, you probably don't want Wi-Fi IoT devices.

Depends on what aspect you're referring to. I'm sure the online accounts are following standards, and the hue bridge can be used locally or via the cloud account. Local LAN generally doesn't have any restrictions on usage, anyone on your net with the app can control stuff from my experience. Maybe that's changed.

The bridge goes out to the Internet, it works without port forwards, so no exposure to the Internet there.

The last point I would think about with security is local bridge-to-bulb security which.... Probably isn't great. But someone needs to be within range with a specific skillset to take advantage of that.

I work in tech and maybe know one guy who might be able to pull that off?

Not sure, it's ZigBee, and I don't think they have encryption turned on at all.

To be fair, I've had most of the bulbs for more than 10 years. I'm pretty sure I picked them up in 2013/2014.

The first failure was about 2 years ago.

So getting 8-12 years of service isn't bad. Most of my bulbs are white/color ambiance A19, which run around $40-75 each (currently)... So it's about $5-10 a year per bulb. Not terrible.

"it just works!"

I've had a similar setup, and bluntly, their not the brightest bulbs, and they're not the best bulbs, but they are one of the easiest to set up and get working. They mostly just fire and forget....

I hate the saying "it just works", but hue, despite all of its shortcomings, just works.

I've had at least one bulb fail outright, started illuminating "white" as an off purple color? It's hard to describe. I have no idea why, but that went into the bin. I also had one bulb that was in-between uses, fall and smash, I think it still works but it has sharp glass on it, so that's probably going to the bin. I have one other bulb that's failing right now... This one is... Different. It blinks. You'll have it at a steady, full brightness (or whatever) and the bulb will just shut off for 1/10th of a second every few seconds. No idea why. It's probably headed to the bin. Luckily it's in my hallway, so I don't see the problem most of the time.

They're expensive, and you don't get a lot of light per bulb considering what you pay for them, but they are easy. That, in and of itself, would be the main reason I would suggest to anyone who isn't a complete nerd, to get hue. Anyone with enough technical prowess and the willingness to set up home assistant, should probably go to different options. Anyone too busy to bother with their lights and just wants something that they can control with their Google home/Alexa/Siri.... Hue is a good option.

Not saying there aren't other good options, but hue is the one that I know and would suggest.

I understand your argument, and I recognize that you're discussing the current state of affairs on the current political and social landscape.

My statements, as a whole, are not specific to the current state of affairs. Religion and belief tried to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, as an example. Of course, there's hundreds of examples of this kind of interference. Darwin's evolution theory is another prime example. I won't go on or this will turn into an anti-religion rant.

The problems I'm pointing at are much broader in scope and longer in the timeline / deeper in history than what you seem to be discussing.

I'm only generalizing about "religion" rather than a specific group or religion, because it's happened so often and come from so many different sources that it's hard to not generalize as "religion" vs naming all the various belief systems that have hindered scientific progress and understanding.

Certainly religion, as a concept as a much more broad and lingering effect on our society, from state religions (mostly eliminated in developed nations), like the church of England, and other, similar religious organizations, where you were obligated to believe in that religion if you lived in that nation or state, to policy set by proxy, by religious groups or extremist believers. Things that oppose bodily autonomy, and equality... Among others. While these are relevant to our society, both historically, and presently, they are not necessarily blocking, refuting, denying, or otherwise trying to remove scientific knowledge and understanding. It's a sad state of affairs that we allow such things to have a significant impact on our society, but these things are not significantly impacting our ability to make scientific discovery and progress.

Speaking strictly of direct interference from religious organizations and belief, both now and especially historically, and the damage it has caused to scientific progress and discovery, is difficult to quantify. Needless to say, it has been a significant detriment to scientific progress.

I cannot think of any examples of Science, or any scientist, trying to influence what religion teaches, or what the followers of that religion believe. Science is happy to let entire swaths of people deny what they say and believe whatever the hell they want. Science and scientists will proceed with the information they have; nobody cares what you think your sky daddy has to say about it.

There will always be people using Science to denounce bad teachings from the church, but this is limited in scope, and generally on an individual basis; typically atheists who are anti-religion will use scientific truths to dissuade beliefs in general, not any specific teaching. Any/all scientific organizations have no comment on the matter.

To put it bluntly, Science wouldn't give any shits about religion if religion would stay in their lane.

While there's plenty of atheists who have taken up the charge of destroying religion as much as they possibly can, with limited success, Science has, to my knowledge, never tried to influence religious teachings. Religion, conversely, has tried to stop, slow or otherwise discredit, scientific research, and understanding.

It seems to me that if religion would stay in its lane, this problem wouldn't exist.

I think that more than a few highly successful people who are both religious and not stupid, have realized what religion actually is and manipulate it to their advantage.

Not all, but I suspect there's more than a few.

You don't need to tell us about this. Religion needs to learn this.

Other than storing programs in it?

1200

Oh boy. I remember seeing an 8 track system once.... I was very curious, and honestly, I still don't have any of the answers I wanted. They're just no longer relevant. The tech was old when I was a kid.

I used dial up, so anything that's post-Internet, I'm probably older than. I still remember the idiot news anchors going "move over Internet, here comes the world wide Web".... They're literally the same thing. What the fuck are you talking about?

Hitler comes to mind.

IDK if it killed democracy because it can fail. Almost all systems of government have failed.

The only one that hadn't (yet) is democracy.

Not sure why anyone would be surprised that democracy has a best before date...

I'm older.

Let's just leave it at that

Narrator: they didn't.

I can likely fall into some version of a category of learned professional. IMO, it's fine, many of us have made our migration to Lemmy. Reddit can burn.

That's just it. Police beat and harass people and the public barely takes note. So fighting back and getting beaten isn't really going to move the needle here in terms of public support. Those that would be outraged by someone getting disappeared in broad daylight by thugs in all black with masks on, that are claiming to be law enforcement, will also be outraged by anything more significant. From a public support standpoint, you don't gain a lot of attention by fighting back and getting beaten.

Honestly, someone should go to the local PD and report that person as missing/abducted.

To be clear: anyone with the skillset, knowledge and experience to effectively stand their ground against these kinds of people, absolutely should.

Unless they clearly identify themselves and show proof (badges and documents) that prove their claims of being law enforcement, you should 100% fight back against being kidnapped by these thugs. They are little more than a gang with government funding if they're not doing things "by the book" so to speak.

As far as I can see, most of this kind of thing that's been happening lately is more based on feelings and assumptions by a small group who is going around mostly unchecked, doing a lot of damage. If the police/LEO crowd had a PR problem with BLM (and all related incidents including protests) then this is going to be a complete shit storm when it finally hits the fan, which might be four years from now....

On an individual level, I completely understand why someone untrained and unprepared would want to avoid any harm coming to them by complying, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Whether police, FBI, homeland security, secret service or some other form of LEO, or simply an organized gang of thugs.... Self preservation is going to be the main goal. Far be it for me to fault someone for doing what they feel is going to give them the best outcome in that scenario.

As much as I agree, resisting is likely going to escalate the situation beyond what most people are willing to deal with.

Face it, very few people have the knowledge and skill required to even put up a fight against anyone that is prepared for that encounter.

I get why the victim here didn't really fight back. I get why she let them take her away. I understand the fear she was probably feeling in that moment, and it can be paralysing for someone who isn't prepared to fight for their life and doesn't have the knowledge, skill, or experience required to handle the situation.

To be clear: I'm not saying this victim is dumb, inexperienced, or lacks general life experience, I would argue quite the opposite, in fact. The problem is that they don't have the knowledge, skill, and experience with confrontations. I'm certain, beyond any doubt, that this person was very intelligent, skilled and experienced; just not with physical confrontation.

This is shameful behavior. Why did they feel the need to ambush a bookworm? Not to insult them so all but they are clearly more of an intellectual person than a combative person.

Disclaimer: I'm not American, I'm just empathetic to those that get disappeared in the middle of the day by people wearing all black without so much as a badge being flashed.