Most times when I hear an alarm (presumably for fire) go off in the office or a public place, it goes as such:

  1. Observe for any signs of actual emergency: smoke, smell, flame, first responders, or panicking crowds
  2. If nothing unusual seen and nobody is getting up, assume it’s a false alarm and continue with task at hand
  3. (Most of the time) Alarm was false and goes away within a few minutes
  4. (<1% of the time) There is indeed a fire somewhere in the building and people take their time gathering belongings before leisurely walking to the nearest door

Same goes in the house:

  1. Wake up groggy, assume false alarm again
  2. Put on pants, check out the source of the noise
  3. (4 times in current residence) Find no indication of fire, hush alarm
  4. Alarm shuts up with a dose of compressed air. If not, sledgehammer time and buy a new one the next day.

That can’t be how most of us are supposed to go about it, right?

Is it for a lack of better smoke detection technology? A consequence of buying low-quality detectors? While we’re at it, can anyone recommend a smoke detector that does its job with a minimum of false alarms?

  • scratsearcher 🔍🔮📊🎲@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    9·
    9 days ago

    Just want to say: False positives for a firealarm … are much better than a false negative, meaning fire without an alarm.

    This makes it really hard to argue for anything other then the status quo without reducing security.

    (<1% of the time) There is indeed a fire somewhere in the building and people take their time gathering belongings before leisurely walking to the nearest door

    / positive negative
    true true positive, there is a fire 🔥 and alarm is on 🚨, peoples lives saved true negative, no fire, no alarm, no worries
    false false positive, the situation you want to avoid 🚨, bad false negative, there is a fire 🔥, but no alarm, really bad