>"The main limitation is that it requires you to use their NVR products"

It is true that Unifi cameras can't be used without running Unifi Protect. And there are many low-cost options for that. But Protect also fully supports RTSP, so you can send the video to something else and never even touch Protect (other than for setup), if you wish. For example, at work we send the video from all the Access door readers to our large Synology system where we store/archive/access the video with their NVR (Synology Surveillance Station).

And you can connect 3rd party ONVIF cameras to Protect, too, which is nice.

>"The unifi stuff leans heavily towards cloud, you can force it to do direct connections but its not the default"

That is not accurate. There is zero dependency on the "Cloud", other than if you want to install updates. Or if you optionally choose to use their cloud tools to gain remote access more easily. The login, the settings, the processing, the web server, the data, and all the video are all local.

Ubiquiti's signature feature is having everything local. It is one of several reasons they have become increasingly more and more popular.

It's true, seifs are for ease of reading ... but so is Calibri. However, I believe Calibri was created for ease of reading on screens, while this article talks about documents on letterhead. So it's possible the choice of Calibri was misguided to begin with. Furthermore, according to the article, the number of “accessibility-based document remediation cases” – which I take to mean instances where somebody requests a document be reformatted for accessibility reasons – has not declined. So he's saying that, while this is a purely subjective aesthetic choice, the original change to Calibri never helped anything anyway.

I care about the kids, and I don't think this is treading on them, I think it's pushing them to have IRL relationships, and that's a good thing. I say that as a nerd who had few friends when I was a teen (in the 80s), but even normal, social kids today have far fewer real friendships and many of the geeky kids like I was now have none at all.

We're a social species, we need and crave socialization, but social media is to real relationships like drugs are to the normal joys of life; a false but massively-amped substitute for the real thing, addictive and harmful. It's perfectly possible to get high or drunk from time to time and still enjoy real life, but you have to use the artificial happiness in moderation and control. There are really good reasons why we try to keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, and keep adults away from the really powerful and addictive stuff, and get them into treatment when they get hooked (well, in the US we mostly just put them in prison, but some parts of the world are getting smarter and focusing on treatment).

The same logic applies to social media. We need to figure out how to tame its effects on adults, especially those who are for some reason especially vulnerable and get very warped by it. IMO, it makes perfect sense to just try to keep kids off of it entirely, especially since we don't really understand it yet.

True. If we were to make the decision based on medical and scientific bases, the drinking age would be 25.

Or your daughter comes home sober with her boyfriend. And her ex-boyfriend who just happens to be a cop uses your cameras to keep track of who she's dating and when.

>"I don't recognize that name, but I retired a few years ago and haven't really kept up with changes in the industry."

They have been around for many years. Parent is Samsung, I think. They also market under the name Wizenet, I think

>"Question out of random curiosity, do they have a tool for managing very large numbers of cameras?"

Yes

>"How long do they support their cameras?"

Seems like many years. They use security screws, metal enclosures, have alarm contacts, good documentation, full line of every kind of mount you would need, all the stuff a professional would expect. And they are NDAA approved, of course.

>"I've only seen two manufacturers who really understand that security cameras should actually be secure, Axis and Pelco."

I would add Hanwha to that list as well. Again, not cheap, but serious stuff.

>"So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results."

I second that. Have a system at work and was impressed and bought one for home. You can do everything with their gateway and also stream to other devices at will. Everything under your control and stored locally. And their stuff is constantly improving. At home using the Cloud Gateway Max, U6 Pro WiFi, G5 Turret Ultras which are not that expensive and have a great picture, basic AI that works well, look great, super easy to mount and aim. And Unifi WiFi stuff is near the best. So you can have a great gateway/firewall/console, plus WiFi, plus video up in no time, and manage it all via a web page.

WiFi should never be used for cameras. It is too unreliable, too easy to fail, too easy to jam, too frustrating in every way. Running that cable is a hell of a lot better in the long-run (pun intended).

So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results.

Actually he tried and partly failed because it was only partly legal.

That might not stop him from trying, and unless Congress or the courts rein him in, it won't stop him from doing it. As I pointed out above, in this case it's unclear that anyone would have standing to sue (not taxpayers; it wouldn't be tax money -- maybe nVidia or China, but they like the deal), so stopping him would probably require Congress to act. And what are the odds that the Republican Congress would grow a spine?

"Not be possible" is too strong.

It's clearly possible unless Congress or the courts prevent it, even though it is clearly illegal. But Trump is doing lots of things that are clearly illegal, which is why the courts keep issuing injunctions to stop him (and then SCOTUS keeps staying the injunctions to let him go ahead and do it anyway, at least for a while). In a sane world, the fact that an action is illegal would be a stronger constraint because the president would have to be concerned that Congress would impeach and convict him, and he would have to be concerned about potential criminal liability. In the world that exists, the GOP leadership in Congress refuses to do their job to rein in the executive, and SCOTUS has declared the president above the law so there are few practical limitations on his power.

So far, the only thing that seems to really make Trump back off is when the stock market crashes.

Nevertheless, a slush fund of several billion dollars per year that the president is truly able to spend with complete discretion would be a significant additional increase in power because it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue, so courts could not intervene regardless of constitutionality. Congress would be able to intervene, of course, but, again, the GOP-led Congress has almost completely abdicated. I had to add "almost" only because they actually did stand up to him on the Epstein files (sort of; the bill left Pam Bondi with near-total freedom to withhold anything she wants, not legally, but practically).

No, Trump is more secretive than most other presidents. You're confusing "unfiltered and disorganized" with "transparent". I do have to grant that he's incredibly transparent about his corruption. Well, maybe. He has been transparently corrupt in lots of ways, but it still seems likely that there's more corruption which he's keeping hidden.

Everything is gambling now.

Meanwhile, the most preventable of diseases are becoming commonplace.

Where did you read that? If it's true it would be momentous. A totally discretionary fund of $2-6B per year (based on nVidia's projections of selling $2-5B per quarter to China) would give the president enormous unchecked power.

I've spend some time searching and haven't found anything to substantiate this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you got the idea from.