And yet I hear dumbshits bragging all time about how alexa controls my (insert thing that definitely does not need automation here).
These sort of people never think beyond tomorrow and it shows.
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
1072 points (98.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
22410 readers
2152 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair.
Douglas Adams
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think that any electromechanical system that does not allow a mechanical override or at least a redundancy are doomed to fail. I don't know why these IOT entrepreneurs don't take in account that software and electronics are faulty systems, ignoring decades of experience in the subject.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why would you ever get a toilet that requires anything but the laws of physics to operate?
You're already @ the mf toilet too, or the sink. what is even the purported purpose of remotely activating something you have to stand there to use?
My new eFirepit is causing my family to die of hypothermia.
I mean... Electronics and the Internet are also following the laws of physics. But I get what you mean, levers should be the only activation, and gravity should be the only requirement.
That being said, electronics in our devices do tend to reduce the amount of water and power that appliances use. Dumb devices are extremely inefficient, even though there are fewer points of failure.
It sucks that a 1950's fridge can still function just fine today, but it also is a bigger strain on the power grid, and a leak in the refrigerant would destroy the ozone.
> That being said, electronics in our devices do tend to reduce the amount of water and power that appliances use. Dumb devices are extremely inefficient, even though there are fewer points of failure.
I fail to see how electronics in these (unpowered) devices in any way reduce the amount of power that they use.
Sprinklers and all kinds of stuff are more efficient with sensors and electronic regulators
I think that was just a general statement regarding old devices, since they brought up a 1950s refrigerator as an example of a powered "dumb" device
In theory you could have a system that monitors input and then uses a precise amount of water to vacate the bowl.
Oh sick, a toilet with bowl cameras
Yeah I think the meaning of the above comment boils down to "If it doesn't have a simple fallback, it can't be trusted".
load more comments
(3 replies)
"Dumb" is the new "smart".