IKEA pairing somehow different than Zigbee binding?

Ikea pairing is Zigbee standard group binding via touchlink initiation. What is different is Home assistant, which doesnt really handle Zigbee groups.

But I’m also curious about the option in Home Assistant to bind devices.

If you mean zigbee group binding, in my experience Home Assistant doesnt handle Zigbee groups well. There is technical capacity and group manager, but to me it seems it doesnt correctly bind all of the action clusters and so on. Plus most finally the UI is very confusing etc. (That or I’m dumb and can’t get it working right)

Home assistant handles grouped devices primarily inside its own logic and talks to them as individual devices. Which leads for example to stuff like non synchronous action. I don’t think Zigbee groups either guarantee synchronicity, but it is pretty instant since it is single mesh wide broadcast of “whole group this, do this”. Where as Home assistant send say ten different messages to ten different Zigbee devices. Thus there is delay and difference, when each device receives their individual command.

Most dedicated Zigbee hubs like trådfri and hue use actual Zigbee groups. When moving devices between “rooms” or whatever each call it, it sends actual configuration message of “change your internal registered group identity” to the lamps, remote controls and so on.

Atleast for android and Bluetooth. Not an absolute matter protocol thing, but probably “normal android allows that only woth google signed app”. Some OS access thing and so on. “You don’t get to access that Bluetooth matter discovery call mode etc. without official sign off, security hurdur”.

Since matter has ways to connected fully without Bluetooth depending on device. Bluetooth is just the easy simple way, instead of having to hunt for pairing QR symbols or number codes. Go to the other device makers app to activate pairing mode or generate one off pairing codes and so on.

How can we actually use it?

We don’t.

I was being sarcastic.

The small problem of it not actually being intelligent and thus not being rationally reliable. Gonna fix it on the next release for sure. ;)

No bravery by James Blunt, so I can play it at endless loop at world leaders.

Most likely coded work around and quirks. Where as ZHA is I guess more “it’s a standard people, follow the standard. If we have problem with you due to your non-compliance, it is a you problem. It is not an us problem, oh and users… how about you patron the standard following device makers”.

Well that could mean anything between “she died of not immediately obvious medical reason, so cause of death inguiry is needed” to “she was murdered, we are investigating”. Heck to investigate “there is no external markers, but we don’t know is it medical stroke or a poisoning murder”.

So I would say, wait until they investigated and tell, if they suspect foul play before jumping to conclusions. Not that Israel isn’t capable and on choosing so willing, but sometimes people just suddenly die of medical causes without prior warning.

Always 50/50 because two party system, FPTP and electoral college.

There not being a better play doesn’t mean that play is a good one. It is a bad play, just the least bad one. What it means the system overall is broken and careening ro a crash, since the actually good plays are not politically viable. Mind you not that they wouldn’t be voter viable, but the gatekeepers who get to choose what is put in front of voters viably don’t want them there, that kind of politically non viable.

Ehhhh. 2016, the year of an open no-incumbent primary? That is not called division, that is called primary democracy working as supposed. Primary is exactly the time, when party membership is under no obligation to show unity. That only needs to happen during the national election stage.

Also just due to winning primary one isn’t as candidate free to ignore other candidate bases. Not out of any high ideals, but hard political reality. No voter is obligated to show up and voters are emotional beings. Slight them and they might stay home (which is the actual risk, instead of them voting for the other party).

It might be “self-harming”, but again voters can be emotional instead of rational. One has to play to their actual psyche, instead of the idealistic perfect rational psyche one would want them to have. Atleast if one wants to win and shouldn’t the aim of democratic party be win by near any means begging, promising the moon to its base, being as enthusiastic and energetic as possible for the national good of avoiding another Trump presidency.

People talk about electorates obligation to avoid another Trump presidency. What about DNCs obligation to go above and beyond to avoid another Trump presidency.

Which is easier to change? The collective psyche layout of 300 million people or one party’s campaign program and political agenda? It’s easier to fix the candidate/candidates program to match the electorate, rather than fix the electorate to match the candidate.

So if there is “division” among party base, it is the candidates and party programs job to move to match, cover and repair the cracks. Not out of high ideals, but since that is the one practically fast enough way to fix the issue. Base isn’t going to suddenly change their psyche and emotional state just, because DNC says to do so out of national good. Again emotional beings, not robotic, rational automatons.

Yeah these polls always being in terms like “registered voters” or “likely voters”. Where as they really should poll “eligible to vote” instead to get full picture of the societal political mood situation.

I would also add that isn’t empty talk like “Well he said it once, non biggie”. That statement by POTUS itself drove the national policy other countries. When POTUS says “other nations you are with us or are our enemies”, that matters.

That is a signal the reverberates around with “do we dare to anger USA on this one”. The Afghan war partisipants list is long and contains some not so obvious participants often doing rather small token participations. Which I think is exactly “Well we have to show we are with USA”.

For example here in Finland in the after action report of Finnish participation in Afghanistan tells the reason wasn’t building peace, it wasn’t even combat experience. It was “coalition and alliance building” aka showing USA “we are with them”.

In the after action study one of the interviewed decision makers literally directly quoted:

Yhdysvallat sanoi 9/11 jälkeen: olette joko meidän kanssa tai meitä vastaan.”

United States said after 9/11: You are either with us or against us.

Right above explaining how it was 20 year long very unpopular operation caused losses and achieved nothing in Afghanistan, but hey the Finnish NATO application will go through with flying colors.

The whole time the media blitz was about “Helping and building peace in Afghanistan”. When in reality we went in because USA publicly extorted pretty all of west to show colors.

This isn’t only in Finland in other European after action reports have shown similar “We went in, because Bush publicly demanded show of loyalty”.

Since he was an idiot and gave a no reservations or conditions bid for the company. At way overpriced at that. The existing biard and owners must have been fainting from shock and glee.

No one sane ever gives no reservations and conditions bid. That is insanely stupid thing to do.

Twitter didn’t make Elon buy Twitter. Elon did that to himself. Under normal bid, absolutely he could back out by arguing one of the conditions his lawyers would have put in.

Either his lawyers were highly incompetent, he didn’t use them or he ignored their advice that it would be highly unusual and monumentally stupid to issue such bid while waiving ones right to have terms and conditions included. Well negotiate in terms and conditions. Since obviously otherside might refuse to accept the buying contract, if they don’t like the terms and conditions.

In this case all the judge did was looked at the bid contract and went “Mister Musk, you signed bid to buy with no terms and conditions. So you have to honor the bid.”

Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren’t desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.

Well PESCO did get created. Denmark dropped their opt out from CSDP. Stuff like this moves slowly, specially upon there not being single hegemonic leader saying “We do this” and everyone else answering “Yes boss”. EU is herding catch and it makes everything move slowly.

However I would note… France has rule about no crosses or cross wearing in schools. So it isn’t like Islam is being singled out. Well this specific rule is about them, but France has very wide rule of “no religious clothing, items or symbols” in school and they don’t much pick sides. Jewish kids… No kippas, Protestants and Catholics, no crosses, Muslims, no head scrafs, no face veils, no religious robes. Sikhs, no turbans.

So it isn’t xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of “no religious symbols wearing”.

What one can say is, that it is highly anti-religious. However that isn’t same thing as xenophobic or say specifically antisemitic or islamophobic. Islamophobic would be “Muslim girls aren’t allowed to wear scarfs, but it’s okay for catholic girls to wear crosses”.

French government “doesn’t like” the local traditional majority religion either.

One absolutely can argue about “is it too much restriction of religious liberty in general”, however one can’t argue “well but this is about jews or muslims”. It isn’t. This specific rule about abayas is mostly a technocratic decision based on wider political decision of “we have principle of no religious displays in school”. It was decided “oh yeah, we missed this one religious clothing wearing/display. Add it to the long list of specified banned religious displays of all kinds”.

I’m sure, if member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster tried to walk to French school with colander on their head, the courts would rule "no colander hats either, that is religious display also. You can go join the Jewish and Sikhs on the club house of “France banned our religious hat” club.

Depends how deep the lines are. They have breached the first line at some points. However as per ukrainians, after the first line is the second line and so on. Russia knows how to make deep defences and anywhere, where they lose one line, they will adjust and start added more lines to the rear to compensate for the lost line. First line lost, second line is now first line, third line is second and so on and add the new Nth line, since the old Nth is now Nth-1 line.

It will be a slow slug and battering ram fest, unless Russian army morale breaks/ supplies exhaust and they run.

I get the “but different states sales taxes thing”, for national advert. However even then, just make them present example price

Get the new Moborola Bazer, only 549 dollars*
* price example for Buffalo new York, including taxes and fees

Since if one is going with “well the final price you pay might not be what was advertised”, make it be more representative and real. Yeah the final price might be different sometimes even lower depending on your local taxes compared to the example prices calculation locations taxes.

Local advertising or on the shelf prices? There is no excuse, you are selling in that location. You know what the taxes and fees are just add them in. Any rare special discount and discrepancy cases, well the people eligible for those know to expect the difference.

No, terrorism act being ruled out means police doesn’t have evidence or even suspect a terrorism motive. There is no separate “terrorism” singular statute for violent crimes. Rather Finland handles this by having qualifier for list of crimes of “crime act done in terroristic intent”. One of these is explosives crimes. Illegal possession and so on. Then going to stuff like “murder with terroristic intent” and so on. Only real pure terrorism crimes are stuff like “leading a terrorist group”, “training for terroristic group” and so on organizational crimes.

What specifying in article means is police has told they have no indication of terroristic purpose/motive and thus the investigation will start regarding just “plain” explosives crimes, instead of starting investigation on “explosives crimes with terroristic intent”. Basically initial show doesn’t show anything related to terrorism. The amount of explosives is itself irrelevant. Since the whole thing about the Finnish terrorism statute is about the motive and purpose, not the means.

You could blow some single person with a whole metric ton of explosives and not be charged with terrorism. If you did it for say as crime of passion since they were having an affair with your spouse, that isn’t a terroristic murder with explosives. It’s just plain murder for personal reasons, just way over the top amount of explosives. You probably would get charged with public endangerment againt since that is awful big explosion and so on. However again… you didn’t endanger public for terroristic purposes so no terroristic crime label. You did it rather out of not caring/stupidity and so on.

Also I would point out as result of couple big European wars and having a pretty sizeable mining industry, even large amount of explosives might be accessible to certain people. Which is why on the other hand authorities really take dim view on explosives crimes. He might not be suspected of terrorism, but I would think the person will get book thrown at them (as much as anyone gets book thrown at them in Finland) to make example. Prosecutor will must likely seek maximum jail sentence for that kind of pile of illegal explosives (whatever they were before, they certainly are illegal upon being put upon some randos car boot, which is not a legal way to store 12 kg of dynamite). Probably aggravated explosives crime at that again given it’s 12 kg of dynamite. You can make awful big crater with that amount.

Also I would at while police is at the moment ruling out terrorism, it isn’t a court judgement. They are allowed to change their mind, should they find evidence making them suspect terroristic purpose. It has happened before. For example the last right wing terrorism case actually started like that. They found a stash of firearms and explosives. However first those were being suspected to be tied to drugs crimes and were found related to a drug bust investigation. So the investigation didn’t start as terroristic. However after couple home searches related to that investigation were done, police found evidence suggesting terroristic purpose. This lead to the crimes classification changing to firearms crimes and explosives crimes to firearms crimes with terroristic intent and explosives crimes with terroristic intent. Plus on top as I remember preparing a terroristic act and so on. They were caught before they actually carried out an strike with their stash.

You know a stale mate is a possible state of war. One side doesn’t always have to be winning and the other losing.