Using an Automation APP like Tasker to turn off a Home Assistant-controlled smart plug when the battery exceeds a reprogramming threshold, might be a more reliable method & works for any device.

This is the method I have been using for years and it works great. I use Home Assistant to manage the automation, the Home Assistant client app for Android (you could use tasker for this) to collect the device telemetry to send to Home Assistant (how it knows when the battery hits 85% or drops below 70%).

I do want to point out there is one small downside to this method: your device charger (and I’m using an Anker wireless phone charging stand as my charger) only works for one device. Example, say my personal phone is charged up to 85%, so I take it off the charger, but my work-issued phone needs to be charged, but when I put my work phone on the charger nothing happens and it doesn’t charge because the charger is connected to a smart plug that’s turned off because my personal phone is charged up.

As much as I would LOVE to see them waste their money on this, we know they are all talk and no action and won’t actually contribute anything.

The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for “assault weapons” other than killing people.

each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

Is this article trying to tell me I’m using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don’t involve killing people.

I don’t even understand why there is a burden on the part of the insured to have to make a written request for this.

If you have a claim that is denied, the insurer should be required to provide the full details and reasons for the denial automatically at the time of the denial.

Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.

The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.

What’s the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame “advice of counsel” on.

To keep the analogy going, they would have to have raped and beheaded the occupants of the death star before actually blowing them up…and the Death Star would have to have been an Imperial tourist destination with not just Imperial citizens, but also visiting citizens from all across the galaxy…but if that’s what George Lucas had filmed, I think there would have been a lot less sympathy for the rebels.

It’s critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.

“Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury”.

That changes everything.

If you think the only topics of conversation we need are Politics, World News, & Technology, then we don’t need more people here.

Personally, I don’t like having to keep going back to Reddit for everything else. For other communities to be successful on Lemmy, we need about 2 orders of magnitude more users.

Are you content to have meaningful activity in just a small handful of generic topics? I’m not.

So, yes, we really do need more people here. A LOT more.

I don’t understand the party thought process: they seem to want as many births as possible, but they also seem to want as many deaths as possible. What does that get them?

Edit: never mind, I figured it out. This is slave-owner mentality. You want/need lots of fresh new meat for the grinder, but then you want to be rid of them as soon as they are past their forced-labor prime.

That’s the part of the point of the comment you are replying to. The fines are neither a deterrent nor an inconvenience to those wealthy enough to cover the cost. They use their money, power, and influence to continue to violate law without any other consequences other than pulling out their checkbook. The fines are meaningless to people that wealthy.

This, plus any unsecured/uncontrolled dog should cause the owner to get a strict fine even if no damage happens. And as far as I know, that’s already law in a lot of places just not ever enforced - and it should be.

Anonymous tips are less than worthless.

The first problem is that anyone who is anonymously tipped on is just going to deny it. And now its the word of a named person vs an anonymous tip. That isn’t going to fly.

The next problem is that people will quickly learn to weaponize the anonymous tip process to persecute the people they dislike - regardless of whether the target was even involved in the vandalism.

Policies like these are dumb. They don’t discourage the bad behavior (the opposite, actually, perpetrators know that the damage they do will impact far more people, which is the entire point of doing it in the first place, so this policy actually works as an incentive to do more vandalism).

Regardless of what you think about breed restrictions, the simple fact that owners are not held accountable for their uncontrolled animals are a big contributor to the problem. Why TF isn’t the owner of that dog having their wages garnished for the damage and terror it is causing?

Dress code standards for hair and appearance are pretty dumb… but even as they are written in this school district, I don’t understand how this kid’s hair violates it.

The code says the hair can’t extend below the eyebrows or below the ear lobes…and this kid’s hair is above his eyebrows and above his ear lobes. I’m looking at the student’s front, side, and back photos that are attached to the linked news article. What is the problem?

No, you’re not paranoid. I’d call it diligent.

The premise of the statement you quoted is faulty to the core. A device internal to your home network knows a lot about the design of your home network and it knows a lot about the other devices on your network, and it can be used to facilitate/relay malicious access to your other devices if it becomes compromised.

Wyze has always struggled with security problems…and I’ll admit that I do have several wyze cameras…but long ago decided their security was not trustworthy and created an entirely new virtual lan to run just my IOT stuff from. That, at least, reduces the exposure for some of their security issues. I certainly would never have interior cameras built by wyze - that’s too risky even with robust network security on my side of it.

The point of my earlier comment was that the inability to account down to the last carbon atom isn’t a valid reason not to start with more generalized high-level estimates and work just from those until/if a better way of doing it is either becomes available or becomes a necessity.

It’s like arguing that we might as well not accept the existence of circles because we can’t calculate to the final digit of pi…when really, for most things, we don’t need that level of precision to still do a good job discussing roundness.

In the city of Seattle, for example, every year, companies over a certain number of employees are required to participate in an annual transportation survey. The employees are surveyed. The questions ask how far the employee commutes to work, how long it takes, and by what method (private vehicle, car pool, public transportation), how many days a year they work from home, or take off, etc. The effort is to assess the impact on environment, parking infrastructure, public transportation, roads, etc.

Obviously, there isn’t a 100% response rate so the data is extrapolated from the responses to the total number of employees employeed at that site (probably why they only poll companies of a minimum size and larger).

If they wanted to implement something like this in seattle, then the next step would be to take the data they already have and start sending those companies a new bill for a new annual tax based on the assessment.

Lots of taxes work off of an estimated assessment rather than having to account for every nut snd bolt of the thing (property taxes, for example).

So how do you do it? That’s how you do it. This isn’t rocket science, and you don’t need to invent new accounting methods or worry about the accounting-sky falling to accomplish it.

I can understand part of the motivation for doing this, but does this not immediately make it significantly harder for users to evaluate an instance and make decisions about whether or not to join an instance based on what other instances it allows/blocks?

If I’m understanding this change correctly, it would hinder user’s ability to find an instance that’s well-aligned to them because no one (including potential new users) will be able to see one of the most important metrics governing how an instance chooses to operate (what it federates and defederates with).

Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee’s commuting.

This would really change the discussion about return to office.