Definitely make sure you think through all the physical security implications of having your house automatically unlock in any scenario.

Have the house auto unlock when getting home on a bicycle, sounds convenient until, as you point out, they could get stolen and now the thief has a convenient way to unlock your house. So you would not want that.

You would definitely not want the house to STAY unlocked when something like a tag is in range. If your kid is home alone, you want them to be able to re-lock the house (or in general, you want to be able to lock your house while the kid is home).

Whatever solution you wind up with, you are going to be trading physical security for ease of use (and complicated fun task). Be safe. Make sure the tradeoffs are actually thought through and worth it.

Hard to unlock the house based on media playing if the kid is outside though.

The internet and cloud points are my favorite. Specifically the fact that those things are out of the picture.

No VLAN configuration necessary. The hub is “the VLAN”. They literally can’t phone home because they have no route to the internet, with no extra setup necessary. For WiFi devices, I have to make sure they’re connecting to the right VLAN and controlled properly, and if I misconfigure something, they are phoning home or joining a botnet.

(This stops being as applicable if you have a sketchy hub you don’t trust, but I trust deconz and ZHA fine enough in this context).

Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.

but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.

“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.

For sure. An implied sense of false urgency is the point of sales in general. There’s all sorts of psychology around manipulating people into buying things.

I just think that acting as if there is some sort of grammatical error or gap in logic is missing the fact that in language, people imply things. And an ad implying “you’re going to buy this, so you better do it while costs less” isn’t too hard to follow.

You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.

That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.

I switched to FreshRSS which works just as well, and doesn’t have a toxic dev