Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel.

This video would be 100x better if you painted yourself green, put a shell on your back and called yourself Franklin.
1
This was a 12 minute and 25 second video full of talking that ultimately never answered the title question nor said anything of value.
1
The thought that it wasn't until 2006 that anyone was taking this idea seriously is false. This has been a continuous thought since 1913. It was touted as a solution in the 70s, 80s & 90s. Even the kids show captain planet did episodes on it.
1
The backyard light that turns itself off after 30 minutes is the most over engineered solution to a simple problem. Why are you introducing so many potential failure points into something so simple? A sensor light costs $15 at your local hardware store, is extremely easy to fit and serves the same function. I also noticed a number of your automations rely on IFTTT. Beyond the fact that means your system breaks if there's an internet outage, and presents a security vulnerability, IFTTT now have a $3/m fee. Totally not worth it when there are better localised solutions.
1
@andrewcbartlett The purpose of automation is for one to not be involved in it's continued function. That is to say, an automated device needs not that I change it's state. It simply responds when it should and as I would like it to without my intervention. This couldn't be more true of something as it is with something as devoid in complexity as an automated light bulb based on movement. If one desperately must see whether their sensor light is switched on or off, one supposes such a person could simply look the window? If such a task proves itself too taxing upon a person, one may consider simply viewing the feed from the camera it supports? And if one finds themselves compelled to check such a state as a matter of regularity, one may seek to ask themselves whether a motion light in any form is an adequate solution for their problem.
1
@andrewcbartlett It seems to me that a smart home ought to be smart. That is to say, it ought to be built with greatest efficiency on any given task. When one over engineers a task, such as making a sensor light "smart" by routing it through a complex series of failure points, it would appear to me that one is not building smart. Where one needs a motion activated light, as originally advised they cost $15 art your local hardware store. Sometimes to make a truly smart home you have to use dumb devices
1
The caveat about methane not lasting as long in the atmosphere is only relevant if the source of the methane is halted. If the source is continuous, then any retired methane in atmosphere is not only replaced but added to. If the source isn't just continuous but increasing in its rate, then methane falling from atmosphere is utterly irrelevant because the amount in the atmosphere is continually growing. We need to stop using the half life of methane as an excuse. Because it's a terrible one that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. The simple reality of the situation is there are far too many people on the planet. So we need to be looking at campaigns to reduce birth rates globally, not just of certain populations. We need most people to choose not to have children.
1
Your suggestion that we only have two options, stretching the water or finding it elsewhere is a false dichotomy. We have many more options than just those two Edit: Your nowhere conclusions for these products were misguided at best.
1