95
Personally I'd take a sledgehammer to their kneecaps... but to each their own. (hexbear.net)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://xcancel.com/Margare71531078/status/1973596277989580918

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

It's incredibly common in industrial automation to control things over networking. Usually it's an Ethernet connection to a computer or laptop interfacing with a PLC that's running code, but same idea. I've built and installed control rooms in steel mills, they're mostly computers running Siemens or Allen Bradley (Rockwell) software, monitors hooked up to cameras around the mill, and operator stations with push buttons, joysticks, lights, e-stops, etc. And plenty of HMI's (big touch screens). Think Homer Simpson's job

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Networking is different than wireless.

    Are least a cable connection means something is nearby. A wireless connection that can be accessed over WAN is what I was freaking out about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You're not wrong, in mfg and similar I've personally only ever seen wireless anything used for measurement instrumentation, explicitly not control, and that was even using a more proprietary wireless than 802.11 / typical WLAN.

    I've been out of those industries for a while and to be fair the ones I serviced were on the more expensive process side (which does translate to better equipment but even just better safety expectations), so idk how accurate my experiences are. But yeah wireless control was def considered unacceptably risky, your instincts are correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •