That's why I try to make dumb things smart, not replace the dumb with smart. Like, make the switch smart, not the bulb.
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
94 points (96.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
34782 readers
846 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Along with making it backwards compatible. (Ie, control system goes down you can still operate just like a dumb system)
Can't lock people into some service if you do that. They gotta have that recurring monthly revenue.
Aye. I did learn this the good old hard way.😁
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.
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.
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.
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.
True, but you could also add a switchbot to it. Ugly but simple and without electrical maintenance needed.
Our ubermench tech genius overlords aren't even competent when it comes to their own native fields.
Is this real?
no idea, but the mere fact that the question can be reasonably asked says volumes