I have a handful of old TP-Link wifi switch devices, but I haven't kept up on the play by play developments. I just know at some point newer ones stopped working with that access method (and I haven't bought any since).

Is KLAP that old local-network UDP protocol with "XOR encryption" ? Or is that something else?

Does using TPAP with your library still require connecting the devices to their "cloud" (warning: surveillance!) ? Or does your library effectively restore the local-only workflow of never allowing the devices Internet access, and controlling them locally ?

That XOR protocol is a different one, and older than anything in the article. It is the original TP-Link Smart Home protocol used by the Kasa line (HS100, HS110 and similar): JSON on port 9999, obfuscated with an XOR autokey cipher, with no authentication at all.

Tapo devices never spoke it. Their original protocol was an AES passthrough over HTTP, KLAP replaced that in 2023, and TPAP is the newest. As far as I know, newer Kasa hardware and firmware moved to KLAP as well, which would explain why your access method stopped working on the newer ones. My library only covers Tapo devices; for Kasa, python-kasa is the one to look at.

On the cloud: the devices do have to be set up through the phone app with a TP-Link cloud account. Once set up, though, most functions of most devices can be used locally through the library, with neither the devices nor the library having internet access. The main catch is credentials: if you change the account password, for example, the devices need to be online for a little while to pick up the new one.

Note that KLAP, afaik, is only for the TAPO range of devices. Those are mostly cameras, doorbells, sensors, robot vacuums, and the like.

And plugs. Don't forget the plugs! Everyone loves their smart plugs :)

"Innovation" ? You mean the term that was created because "invention" was too obvious of a stretch?

Exactly how much of what has been billed as "innovation" couldn't simply have been done on a mainframe with 3270 terminals? I'd say the entirely of the "web 2.0" and "mobile app" trends could have fit into that. CRUD transactions with fancy window dressing.

The actual hard tech problems that have been solved consist of like virtual machines, miniaturized computers, search engines, and LLMs. Which are great, for sure. But the majority of the user-facing software on top has been noise, outright trash even.

While command prompts and programming languages have always been generally poor (ie obtusely machine focused), I'd say they were at least honest. As if you put in the effort to learn something, you would actually get something out of it - not just the ground shifting under your feet. Or alternatively you could just not engage, not put in the effort, and that was fine, too

Now you're basically forced to engage, and when you do end up engaging it's always the lowest common denominator surveillance industry entitled-to-your-data tripe. And while you can engage a little harder to run up the hill of self-actualization, the industry is even working on plugging that "hole" with captchas, remote attestation, and their ilk.

You should demand a paper copy of that "contract" to execute, because there is going to be so much objectionable shit in there you're going to want to cross a bunch out. When I was in a similar position, I was presented with stuff like forms assigning them a power of attorney so they could receive his social security payments into their own bank account and then pay his "living expenses" themselves. Yeah sorry, that's hard no!

The whole thing reeked of a financial extraction scheme presumably assented to by people who don't want to deal with their family members and just wanted to forget about them while telling themselves "they were in good hands". So if that's not your position, get adversarial, like yesterday.

Remember if he's already admitted (presumably inpatient rehab), there isn't much they can do whether you sign or not. The paperwork and administrative extraction machine has grown without overhead because (unfortunately) people think that blindly signing legal documents is just how things are, but the basic reality is that they are still bound to provide a duty of care (however thin) without any of that.

Probably more like "arbitration by AI" as a step in "reforming" plea bargains. I think the real questions are 1. whether the AI would have to explain its reasoning, and 2. whether you would get to appeal to a regular court.

Ten years is not a "great deal". Remember how much you've done in your life over the past ten years. Now imagine being caged up for that time instead, and then being released into a world in which everything had passed you by.

It's a lot better than being murdered, of course. And it's better than say twenty years. But this still isn't saying much, right?! There are no good answers here, only less-bad answers. The whole situation is a tragedy all around - one which arose out of a fucking traffic disagreement.

Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. And while this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line answer of how one should be approaching every little difficulty. (a traffic disagreement!)

But yet we've got mass media that demonstrates them as if they're some kind of simple "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.

(Note to any reflexively-downvoting gun-thumpers: I'm not actually arguing to make firearms illegal or anything! I'm a gun owner myself. They're a tool - a tool whose dynamic has been poorly understood in popular culture)

Of course it's not ideal. But you're really getting waylaid.

Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.

The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)

That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.

In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?

Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.

In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.

Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.

I'm not "getting waylaid", I'm pointing out the best answer to how many years in prison for murdering someone is, by far, wu.

Firearms being an effective way to murder is exactly one thing underlying the dynamic. But my point is that it isn't even the existence of firearms per se, but rather a culture that emphasizes escalating minor disagreements into life or death confrontations. The bar seems much higher for bringing a situation to that point with beating or stabbing.

This speaks directly to your objectively comparing sentence lengths. How many people on the jury were thinking "shit, I drove here today, I everyday carry a gun, I could easily end up where the defendant is" ?

Where is this magical land you live where your fate does not depend on unelected bureaucrats?

and in reply to your dead reply - Argumentum ad absurdum: what I did to highlight the ridiculousness of your comment. You yourself chose an impossible standard of rejecting "unelected bureaucrats". You could have chosen to frame your argument in terms of degrees of democratic accountability. However, you didn't.

The entire destructionist movement is based around channeling frustrations on very real issues into mere ways of making money for Dear Leader. When you zoom in, even core issues like immigration reform fit the pattern - still giving a pass to the major employers of illegal labor, modulo the policy-performative vice signalling of torture camps. Grumpism is effectively just one big arbitrage of ideals. In a sane world, the people who care most about the issues "championed" by the destructionists would be the loudest critics of them, as it's their political capital that is being destroyed! But apparently most of them are too busy "winning" to perform one iota of self-reflection.

The answer to both of these questions is a resounding "NO". But the question remains of why you have contrasted them as if they are in opposition.

That hypocrisy has been there for decades if you had looked, so it seems wrong to consider the catalyst as being "Gaza" rather than things like increased alternative media from digital communications, influence campaigns, etc. Also you're drastically overstating things by balling it up as "liberalism" rather than say the US-as-hegemon world order.

Hamas did expect it, just like their kindred warmongering spirits in Israel expect further retaliation. However, Palestinian civilians most certainly did not deserve it.