Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) are installed in the overrun area of many but certainly not all runways. No idea about this airport. And I’m not sure how effective EMAS is in a gear-up landing such as this accident.
Did you look into Scrypted? It is OSS. With HomeKit (which is how I use it) it is also E2EE. I’m not sure if their app is E2EE though, I only use HomeKit.
It’s pretty good and has an extensive ecosystem. The dev can be a bit… feisty though.
It’s very performant and easy to setup. I don’t use the NVR features as I already have an NVR, I essentially just use it for HomeKit integration of my cameras + doorbell.
I'm not familiar with Scrypted unfortunately. But thanks for the pointer. I'll have to study it to understand its security and privacy implications. I skimmed the docs very quickly but couldn't find info on their use of encryption.
About HomeKit: yes, HomeKit uses iCloud end-to-end encryption (https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651) and is certainly superior to those systems that don't use encryption at all or just use encryption between the device and their servers. But Privastead has two advantages:
1) Privastead uses MLS for end-to-end encryption, which provides forward secrecy and post-compromise security. iCloud's end-to-end encryption does not. So what does that mean? This is from the link I included earlier:
"If you lose access to your account, only you can recover this data, using your device passcode or password, recovery contact, or recovery key."
If an attacker manages to access your password, recovery key, etc., they'll be able to decrypt all your videos (assuming they have recorded all your encrypted videos). Such an attack is not possible in MLS. Similar to the Signal protocol, MLS uses double ratchet and there is not a single password, recovery code, key, etc. that can decrypt everything.
2) The HomeKit framework and iCloud end-to-end encryption are not fully open source as far as I know. Therefore, we simply have to trust what Apple says about their security and privacy implications. That might be okay for some users, but not others. Privastead is and intends to remain fully open source. IMO, being open source is a critical component of any security/privacy solution that would like to gain users' trust.
Interesting. I think the usage model provided by Privastead is reliable enough (at least for me). I have access to my videos on my phone. If losing the phone is a concern (which should be rare), we can easily add a feature that keeps a copy of the files in the hub too.
Barely. A lot of functionality is gated behind the NVR plugin, which is closed-source and fairly expensive.
> easy to setup
In my experience, it’s easy to set up. But it’s extremely configurable in all the wrong ways and quite difficult to configure in the ways that one might actually want to configure. And the front end is not fantastic IMO: event filtering is extremely weak and scrubbing is bizarre.
> But it’s extremely configurable in all the wrong ways
Damn that feels exactly like my experience with Zoneminder. I’m sure it is decent software under the hood, but the UX is downright hostile to anyone who just wants to get IP cameras to do very basic motion detection to record some full resolution footage, which feels like the major, obvious use case that should be optimized for.
I am thankful for OSS existing in this realm, but why do so many solutions make the same mistakes? Am I crazy in thinking that a good out of the box experience is important? Is some critical part of the formula locked behind private walls? Something else? Genuinely curious.
I suspect there’s a tendency by the kind of developers who make fancy open source projects to expose all the awesome nerdy power of their software. Have three different motion detectors? Expose all of them! Make them plugins! Have “extensions”! Have components provide “things!” Make a UI for all of that! It’s especially nifty when the UI looks just like the code structure.
But making a good UI for defining object detection zones is hard, so the very first thing that works at all sticks. Or, once you’ve carefully optimized by using the camera’s built in motion detection and having all the streams you could want, supporting software motion detection is an afterthought, and making it configurable in any useful manner is even more of an afterthought. After all, all the cameras you actually use personally have built in detection that works well and also have so many built-in RTSP streams that you never actually had to optimize for the experience of using a camera with a single stream, a somewhat defective implementation of ONVIF, and entirely unusable motion detection. So you make it work, but only using plugins and extensions, and it never becomes pleasant.
This is the issue of any Alexa/voice assistant. Ive had enough errors to make even bothering to use them pointless. And it's made worse by the fact that identical voice commands can be interpreted differently at a later date.
No I’ve dreamed before so I can tell when I don’t. I’ve discussed my dreams with my wife when I have them. They’re vivid on some occasions when I travel, most nights I don’t have any.
As much as anyone can say otherwise, running Linux isn’t just a breeze. You will run into issues at some point, you will possibly have to make certain sacrifices regarding software or other choices. Yes it has gotten so much better over the past few years but I want my time spent on my work, not toying with the OS.
Another big selling point of Apple is the hardware. Their hardware and software are integrated so seamlessly. Things just work, and they work well. 99% of the time - there’s always edge cases.
There’s solutions to running Linux distros on some Apple hardware but again you have to make sacrifices.
Even on the machines most well-supported by Linux, which are Intel x86 PCs with only integrated graphics and Intel wifi/bluetooth, there are still issues that need to be tinkered away like getting hardware-accelerated video decoding working in Firefox (important for keeping heat and power consumption down on laptops).
I keep around a Linux laptop and it's improved immensely in the past several years, but the experience still has rough edges to smooth out.
> Even on the machines most well-supported by Linux, which are Intel x86 PCs with only integrated graphics and Intel wifi/bluetooth
Uhh, this is just untrue. I have it running on three different laptops from different vendors and Fedora, pop_OS!, and Ubuntu were all pretty much drop-in replacements for Windows, no problems.
You "keep around a Linux laptop" but I daily drive them and it's fine. Sure, there's the odd compatibility problem which could be dealbreaking, but it's not like MacOS is superior in that regard.
I'm just speaking from personal experience. That example was real, Firefox did not work with hardware accelerated video decode out of the box for me under Fedora, which was pretty high impact with that machine being used for studying. I got it working and it's kept working since, but like I said, it took some tinkering.
macOS has its own oddities of course, but they don't impede such basic usage as video playback.
Not this again :). Just taking a random example: the Samsung S5 was IPX67 rated (up to 1m for 30min), was thinner than an iPhone 16, and had a replaceable battery. Admittedly, it has fewer mAh, but it's also older battery technology and the volume of the phone case is slightly smaller (and probably has bigger electronics).
Is should be totally possible to make a good 2024 flagship with replaceable batteries, but we'd have to forgo the fancy glass back panels.
The problem with this logic is that phones are complicated and have a lot of constraints. Phone design inherently involves numerous tradeoffs.
So... of course it's possible for manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to create a thin, waterproof phone with no-tool battery replacement.
But at a cost to other features.
The market has shown repeatedly that few consumers value no-tool battery replacements, relative to various other features they'd have to give up to get it. People are voting with their wallets and it doesn't make sense for Apple, Samsung, etc., to build phones people don't really want.
> The market has shown repeatedly that few consumers value no-tool battery replacements, relative to various other features they'd have to give up to get it. People are voting with their wallets and it doesn't make sense for Apple, Samsung, etc., to build phones people don't really want.
It costs those manufacturers next to nothing to make the battery replaceable. What is does cost the is future sales of phones, because now people could swap in a 15$ replacement battery instead of choosing between (1) pay 150$ for a replacement or (2) just get a new phone.
This isn't about the market not wanting to pay the extra 5$ it would take, this is about the manufacturer deciding there is more money to be made this way.
We never truly had a choice. The fact of the matter is people's choice of phone brand is sticky, and manufacturers abuse that. If you've had the Galaxy S5 and needed a new phone at no point did you have the choice between an S7 with or without replaceable battery. It's get the S7 without, or screw you - get a worse phone.
> It costs those manufacturers next to nothing to make the battery replaceable.
Are you sure about that? I notice Apple charges $99 for, e.g., an iPhone 15 battery replacement, not $150. And iFixit charges $44 for an iPhone 15 battery, not $15 (not to mention, a user-replaceable one would need changes, like a case, which would tend to make them more expensive). I wonder if you have an understanding of the cost to phones in terms of price and/or loss of other features to make their batteries user-replaceable without tools.
> Its get the S7 without, or screw you - get a worse phone.
Yep. But it’s not to screw you. It’s because they can’t create that phone with the replaceable battery you want, not without making it worse and/or more expensive.
> What is does cost the is future sales of phones, because now people could swap in a 15$ replacement battery instead of choosing between (1) pay 150$ for a replacement or (2) just get a new phone.
This argument is undermined by Apple putting a user configurable 80% charge limiter in recent iPhones that extends battery life multiple times over.
(And that's on top of the smart charging to avoid charging to full if not needed, added many models ago.)
(Kidding. I did love mine and I did not protect it, and I'm sure it got rained on many times, but I don't know if I ever literally hosed water through it. :)
But that's most likely 1% of the market. They can have their own phones. The rest of us just want water resistance for accidental contact with water and easily replaceable batteries.
I think you’re in a techie bubble. I would wager more people care about better water resistance (for example, because they want to use their phone in the shower) than about easily replaceable batteries.
The overwhelming majority of people will never even contemplate trying to replace their own battery no matter how easy it is (unless it’s literally 90s/2000s-style snap on).
We have our own phone, it's the iPhone. I paid the money for it because I wanted the full package. You can buy your own kind of phone that's not the full package. Many different vendors are making that.
The iPhone is not waterproof, it's IP68 rated meaning it's water resistant. Swimming with your phone is absolutely not recommended and I don't know a single person that does this (unless we count people using special waterproof cases for filming).
So no, the average smartphone buyer does not swim with their phone. Manufacturers had other incentives to make changing the batteries harder and there was no pressure from customers to increase the IP rating. In fact all you hear is people ranting how much it sucks that batteries are so hard to change these days.
Is that all you hear? I don't hear that at all. People around me didn't change the battery when it was easy either. I was always like an alien when I suggested it.
I remember when the iPhone first came out non-tech friends had recurring nightmares about forgetting to take their phone out of their pocket before swimming.
It also works when using Spotify Connect on your iOS device. If you can use your volume buttons to control it you can also adjust it with the slider in the control centre.
That's really helpful to know. At this point though, I'm excited enough to build a volume knob that I'll probably still do it.
edit: After trying this out it a bit, it's definitely an improvement over the small sliders and a huge improvement over the stepped volume changes from the buttons, but I'm still left wishing I could make use of more than ~10% of the slider's full range.
Governments aren’t ahead of the private sector and arent doing parallel innovation with their massive budgets, just knowing industry trends gets you an understanding of what to expect
They're ahead in very specific ways, mostly where there's no commercial activity that would justify the expense of investing in that area. e.g. extremely high resolution imaging satellites.
