Comment on Minnesota burglars are using Wi-Fi jammers to disable home security systems

• theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “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.

  source

  • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “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.

    source

    • bluespin@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      ‘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

      source

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        By your rational all 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.

        Like

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

      source

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Oh yeah, for sure.

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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source