this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024

245 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59410 readers

3201 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

245

Minnesota burglars are using Wi-Fi jammers to disable home security systems (www.techspot.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s to c/technology

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Minnesota burglars are using Wi-Fi jammers to disable home security systems::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] givesomefucks 47 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So is all the locks on your door...

You can have a metal door with 3 deadbolts and a cast iron storm door also padlocked.

Still takes a small rock to break a window.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"So are all"

And yes I agree, if people want to get in they are going to get in but a lot of people buying these cameras some how think they are suddenly immune to crime.

[–] QuarterSwede 11 points 9 months ago

Devils advocate: A masked figure who walked to my property and stole my stuff doesn’t solve who did it. If someone doesn’t want to get caught, there are always ways to prevent it.

Note: I don’t think people think they’re immune but they may not realize wifi can be jammed. Wired is better than wireless but sometimes wireless is the only way or only way to provide a camera to a certain spot that wouldn’t be covered otherwise. And then there’s renting where wired mods to the home/property may not be permitted. There are some use cases that make sense.

[+] givesomefucks -11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

“So are all”

Eh, depends.

All precautions you can take are just visual deterrents

Is correct, but so is

All precautions you can take is just a visual deterrent.

Because it's talking about a singular group of things, whether you use "deterrents" or "deterrent" is what determines if an "is" or "are" is used.

The singular/plural is about if your talking about a bunch of visual deterrents or everything adding up into a singular visual deterrent.

So talking about "locks" as a group gets a singular deterrent and "is". Logically it's that all the locks are one singular visual deterrent rather than each lock being it's own.

Doesn't really matter tho, English is a pretty stupid language.

[–] bluespin 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

'All precautions' is plural, so you have to use 'are'. Using 'is' is in no way correct there; the 'deterrents' bit has nothing to do with it

[–] givesomefucks -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

By your rational the first person should have said:

If they are running over Wi-Fi they aren't really security, they are just toys. At the very best they are visual deterrents for opportunistic people

But they didn't, they said:

If it is running over Wi-Fi it isn’t really security, it is a toy. At the very best a visual deterrent for opportunistic people

Even though they were talking about security systems which have more than one component even if only one camera.

The "visual deterrent" made the whole sentence singular. Just like when I referenced a group of locks.

His baseball card collection is his most important possession.

That collection is a lot of individual things, but the group is singular.

Theres multiple locks, but we're talking about them as a group being a singular visual deterrent.

Like I said, English is a stupid language. Like how we list adjectives in a certain order, we know when it's right or wrong, but ask someone to explain why and they usually can't.

[–] bluespin 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Don't have the time to get into a grammar debate. Just letting you know why you're being downvoted since no one else told you why your statement is incorrect

[–] givesomefucks -4 points 9 months ago

Oh ok...

Thanks for replying to say you're not replying I guess

Doesn't seem like a good use of time tho.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The fact you used your possessive instead of you're in "if your talking about" pretty much discredits anything you had to say there.

[–] givesomefucks -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, for sure.

A phone typo immediately let's you know that person doesn't know grammar.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Whilst usually I would agree if you are attempting to be a pedant about grammar you should probably use correct grammar......

[–] givesomefucks -1 points 9 months ago

Not really being a pedant.

Someone corrected me, and I clarified that whether it's singular or plural is kind of ambiguous which make both correct.

Because like I said, English is stupid. And even native speakers who follow all of its rules can't explain them.

Think about that for a second, we all get over a decade of learning the language, and we're mostly going off gut feeling when we use it. We may know a few rules, but not all the excepttions and rare cases the rule is wrong.

Since someone cared enough to point out the general rule, I explained the rare exception. Because I thought they'd care.

[–] Quetzalcutlass 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Burn Notice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

one of my favorite scenes

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.