106
No Connection, No Flush (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)
[deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent