I said it above but I will say it again, if your fridge has a door open sensor it should have a close the door function. This is especially true if you spent $11k on it.
There is already a door switch in all the refrigerators I have used. It controls the light (at least I think it does, I have never seen the light go off:)
Me, in the US, tried to buy a non smart oven a couple years ago. I could not find one (that fit the space the old oven was in). I also did not see any with knobs that I could turn for less than $10k. They all had the plastic covered membrane buttons.
I don't know the US but in the UK quite a good thing is to go to Argos and select the cheapest stuff which usually lacks fancy buttons etc. Like here's an oven for £128 https://www.argos.co.uk/product/9418569
I wanted an induction hob/stovetop with knobs for my mum for usability. Super hard to find. She had just started to burn stuff on the old resistive unit because she was losing mobility. It had touch sensitive glass that has infuriated her for years (touch on hobs design is always a poor usability compromise).
Highly recommended upgrade for anyone with parents. I would now even go to trouble to import a unit with knobs (I asked at a heap of shops before luckily finding someone just beginning with a new line for their shop).
Finding usable devices and buying them for your parents takes a LOT of work, but the work really pays off when you get it right. I also gave them a microwave with knobs.
I do not disagree with your sentiment. We have had refrigerators for 100+ years [citation needed] after all. Still there are likely cases where it is useful. Looking in on elderly family members might include picking up things from the grocery store and having a list of staples needed might be an example. There are plenty of ways to deal with this but one might be a connected refrigerator.
I live with an elderly person (as a caretaker) and find that elderly persons are not always good sources of information about needs. It could be that I am completely wrong about the usefulness of a connected refrigerator (I just look in out 1980's era fridge).
> We have had refrigerators for 100+ years [citation needed]
If you’re thinking about the domestic appliance, apparently since 1913 [1], so close enough (what a stupid name, though). AFAICT the first one with something that looks like the modern cooling loop is the first Frigidaire from 1916. But the concept of refrigeration to keep food for longer is older.
> Looking in on elderly family members might include picking up things from the grocery store and having a list of staples needed might be an example
You would turn up unannounced with things you think are missing from the fridge surveillance camera? Here's how that should go: Visit old person. Check fridge. Check cupboards. Visit store. Visit old person.
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,”
I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy.
It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
I think it is important because the case was not about guilt or innocence. It was about the governments right to search without any cause. If the case was about whether there was enough cause for the search we would be having a much different discussion here.
I should probably have said this in my original comment.
What are the things that campaigns spend money on that really makes a difference in outcomes. Is it plastic signs in peoples yards, advertising, paying for news stories. I have a hard time believing voters hear candidate X raised more money and then they vote for candidate X. Still, I also know that raising more money is a good indicator of who will win. Why?
I haven't worked on campaigns for a LONG time but I don't think the basic answer has changed much. It's media and labor.
Presidential and statewide elections are a little different, but in most races the average voter isn't putting a lot of thought into an individual candidate. The bulk of that money isn't being spent to convince a voter to vote for an individual, it's convincing them to vote at all in full knowledge that most will break for one team or the other. It's part of why so much of the messaging is based at the lowest common denominator - it's more effective to spend money telling people that the "GOP hates women!" or "Dems want boys on your daughter's volleyball team!" in order to get the emotional response that will encourage action. Once you identify one of your "team", you basically spend money harassing them to vote until they do.
The groups that tend to spend more money win for the same reason that a product that is advertised more heavily, all other things being relatively equal, will outperform the product that advertises less.
reply