Sorry you felt like that was corporate shilling. This is a problem we see people hit often and have built something to improve the experience, so it felt worth sharing. If it helps, we're a 2 person team (hardly a corporation) and we received YC's Startup School grant last year, for whatever that's worth on their forums.

I do mean it that I'm happy to talk about anything smart home related, so feel free to email me! I spend a lot of my time helping people plan out their smart home build from scratch, including choosing between types of light switches, thermostats, platform, etc unrelated to our sensors.

Don't know about "corporate shilling" - you weren't covert at all.

I did ask for options after all.

The only gotcha is the requirements will overwhelm most basic setups fairly quickly. Not talking 20 lights here or a tv or desk or two.

I've replied to your original comment, thanks.

PS I forgot to mention, all this exists right now as a mixture of amazon echo and a set of text inputs via phone over wifi for evaluation. As we implement more it turns into more voice control and less of a giant hack. So some bits are half-baked but functional.

I don't think mentioning your smart home startup in response to someone asking for recommendations for their smart home is unappreciated "corporate shilling".

It feels very borderline to me, given that it doesn't really address the question, but instead goes more like "actually, you don't want what you ask. instead, what I'm selling is better". At least that's how it comes across to me.

From the site guidelines:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.

Besides, the commenter was upfront about their affiliation and offered insights that appear helpful to the discussion.

From elsewhere in the site guidelines:

> Assume good faith

I don't think that first rule applies here, precisely because they were upfront (and thus byteshock isn't insinuating some hidden motive, but directly criticizing what they said)

I think the guidelines almost need some "case law" examples. Although I understand why they wouldn't.