Not up to you as a hole puncher to decide what a network uses. You just punch holes. IPv6 doesn’t allow you to skip NAT unless you are comfortable with your code not running everywhere.
I’ve fallen prey to too many people at the top of slippery slopes offering “gentle pushes”. The end result is always the same. If I’m to go down one it will be kicking and screaming not silent as a lamb.
The thing is, I think these are distinctly different approaches. Mandating that OSes collect a provided age and that websites/software collect and use that is very different from making sites liable for providing various types of content to minors. The first one is basically standardizing parental controls. The second one is already happening and results in ID verification approaches. I really, really do not want the second one, and it is already happening.
While “perception is reality” is indeed a thing in life so is respecting diversity. If this person prefers to be spoken to in a certain way then it is polite to respect their wishes. You can have your own preference and they should likewise respect yours.
It's polite to try and meet somebody half way, but I've dealt with people who want to lay out all the rules for communication and it typically boils down to a one-sided arrangement where the world is supposed to work for them, but they're unwilling to do the same for the world. Unless somebody has a real limitation (like ESL or a mental handicap), I just ignore these kinds of requests. Make a good faith effort to not be an asshole, but don't give an inch to petty dictators; they have damaged egos and get satisfaction from having people comply with arbitrary requests or demands, and asking for changes to your language is often just the beginning.
Once I verify a home video product works as intended I remove its network connection and never connect it again. I then leave its static ip address configured and block any traffic from it on the off chance it’s ever connected again.
The sole exception is my PlayStation 5. I use apps on it for all streaming.
I also had to take this approach with my LG TV. The OS actually had its use for a while but Apple TV has become my driver. I no longer wish to consent to LG’s EULAs which are starting to look like the legal corpus of a small nation. I’m also not interested in their software updates. Internet privileges: revoked.
It’s concerning nonetheless as others are pointing out that in the current trajectory the TVs may soon refuse to display any content unless connected.
I’ve read reports of these devices turning on wifi and auto connecting to known public wifi networks. Seems we went from a generation of technologists dismissing Stallman as paranoid to one living in his nightmare and not being appropriately familiar with his work, issues of art vs artist aside.
Stallman has always been right. Hes a radical, but he was always been right. He is basically prescient with seeing how private software would be used. He was just so early that people thought he was a crazy radical, but now he seems to be stricken with a case of being Cassandra.
There hasn't been open public wifi networks near where I live for over a decade. It also seems increasingly rare for businesses to have them (they usually have an SSID and password posted somewhere). I don't think this is a thing.
But here's where it might go.
Verizon and other cell companies bundle streaming apps with their plans. It's really not a far leap for them to bundle a TV as well. Especially if TVs get really expensive due to whatever factors - get a 120" TV for just $30 extra on your bill over the next 5 years. And Verizon could contract with an OEM to make a Verizon-specific model, and put a 5G modem in it, and lock it to Verizon service. Verizon's just an example here, AT&T, T-Mobile could do the same.
Business idea: a signal-jamming cover for your 65-inch TV.
It looks like shit, is difficult to install, and costs an arm and a leg, but at least it prevents egregious privacy violations from your average chaebol or CCP-intervened corporation!
Why not just change your wifi password so that the TV can't connect again (after you've got your OTAs but I guess you could have loaded them on a USB stick to flash instead of wifi)
Who cares? Companies are using your need to have the latest and greatest against you. It's overt manipulation. I'd rather watch an old CRT or nothing at all than allow some company to forcefully show me ads.
> Companies are using your need to have the latest and greatest against you
This is a false dichotomy.
My love of cinema drives me to have certain features in my TV: 4k, OLED, HDR. My hatred of ads drives to me buy certain products to use my with TV: Apple TV.
You don't really get a lot of options anymore. When people around don't really care and just buy this junk because it's cheap, and they "need" a new TV ever three to four years, for some reason, then you get priced out of the market pretty quickly. Even if you look for TV, and yes I want a TV, not a monitor, without all this junk, there's not really any options available locally anymore. I believe my only option is the Thompson Easy TV, which is great, if I needed a 43" TV or lower.
Apparently I can attempt to import one from Romania, but that seems fairly complicated. Even sites that recommend dumb TVs just recommend SmartTVs that works well as a dumb TV.
It's ridiculous that going to a Target/Bestbuy/etc you cannot find any non-smart TVs generally. I have had several older models of non-smart tvs that suddenly stop working after a few years. It's disgusting
It's either because the non-ad-driven tvs cost more, resulting in too few sales to sustain (because no lifetime revenue from data sales) or the lifetime revenue from data sales is so profitable that companies take the risk on being undercut by a market entrant that will sell dumb tvs.
My guess is that the vast majority of people will trade data for a cheaper price point every time (my wife is certainly one of these people), so the market just can't support the volume of sales necessary to make the price point of dumb tvs competitive.
A smart TV just means one that can show you advertising and hoover up personal data. This is additional revenue. What company would sell you anything else?
We don't really have physical access to it - in the sense that on your desktop computer you can boot off a usb drive and reinstall the OS. There is no way you can boot your TV off external media. So you have to hack the existing OS while running it.
The way rooting working on a TV is that you run some javascript in the TV browser that targets some vulnerability in the browser/OS to run some code that then gives you a way in. Or if it has a USB port (to watch videos off a usb drive), you play a specifically crafted video that targets some vulnerability in the media players, to again install some program that then lets you do more serious changes to the OS.
The thing stopped being so needy when I neutered its internet access. Maybe it’s still exfiltrating data but at least it has stopped making me anxious that I may need to consult a civil rights lawyer every time I saw their EULA.
The sim card in a kindle was a global connect-to-any-network SIM card. Your Kindle was always online and ready to download more books no matter where you were in the world. It was legit actually useful and valuable to customers.
What's Amazon gonna do with a Kindle with an embedded SIM? Spy on the books you read? They already know that shit!
I think you're confused. Kindles need to be connected to the Internet so you can purchase and read books on them. The SIM card removed friction from the process e.g. buying books while on vacation or at the airport or whatever.
They didn't put SIM cards in there to spy on you. They were always an opt-in (at additional cost) option for a better user experience.
Pro tip for devices that refuse to simply remove working WiFi credentials (cough Samsung), is to connect them to a different “dummy” WiFi and then simply turn that off.
I’ve yet to see a device that caches more than one set of credentials. But I suppose it’s only a matter of time.
Then we shall only ever connect to a throwaway wifi ssid created for the sole purpose of setting up that TV and deleted promptly afterwards.
Samsung will then use NFC / QuickShare transient hotspot to helpfully sync all useful info from your Samsung phone nearby.
Then we block that IP address or MAC ID from router side.
Then smart TVs will switch to open mesh networks hosted by unsuspecting ISP customer boxes in neighborhood.
And maybe even starlink.
=====
Maybe wifi standard should stop using static passwords and create a device specific hash to let it connect. Wifi admin should get to approve each device connection request.
I have a TCL so maybe it's different, but did your TVs require connection to set up?
The TCL can still act as a HDMI switch with CEC, and that can be labeled through the remote if you want, so there was never any need to connect to a network.
With the widespread move to OLED across the TV and monitor manufacturers, this might not be the case for much longer. They look and perform great, but are ultimately a consumable product.
Copy that. I have a 2007 Kuro Elite 50" Plasma whose picture is still so beautiful after 19 years it's almost 3D. Not.One.Repair/Problem/EVER. I dread ever having to buy a new TV.
2008 Kuro Pro 111FD here; not a single issue to report, either. I honestly don’t know what I’ll do once something eventually happens; I’m seriously considering hoarding any similar Elite models within drivable distance.
My parents got a new smart TV; if you don't give it wifi access it will nag repeatedly about it. Very annoying, and it only takes one time for it to go "Yay! I'll store these forever now."
(It will also wheedle you to re-enable the AI features and telemetry if you turn those off. Which you do like eight levels of confusingly and scarily named submenus.)
The best course of action here seems to return the TV. Any TV that cannot be permanently switched to HDMI input without nags is unfit for purpose and should be rejected.
This is outrageous and we need to stand up against it. You're merely avoiding the danger of uber-enshittification of hardware (now once software is enshittified enough), but this will crawl further and further. Meanwhile rating companies are lowering ratings of firms that DO NOT have 'subscription model' in their products, that's why we're intended to pay for enabling heating in car seats from now on.
The TV manufacturers know they can get a guaranteed $30-50/year spliff out of the platform vendors per unit for allowing the shitware in the first place and that these TVs will last long enough to get them a nice several hundred dollar subsidy on the TV.
I’m afraid there’s not going to be a great affordable path out of this hypersubsidized trap we’ve set the market into.
Consumers just keep putting up with it. TVs are not a necessity; it's not like electric bills or healthcare. There are more ways to consume content than ever before, and more content available than ever before. Not owning a TV in the 80s or 90s was something of a big deal. Now, it couldn't matter less. But people are still putting up with whatever crap manufacturers are putting out. It should be easy to vote with wallet (even that means simply not purchasing a TV) but consumers just keep buying this crap.
"But while BMW ultimately backed down over heated seats, the company still believes in the features-as-a-service model, and will continue to offer post-purchase upgrades through its ConnectedDrive platform. "
And then they will complain that Chinese company are simply crushing them... As a European, I have been buying only Asian cars for ages as I don't want to play their "add options" game, and I think that more and more people are tired of that.
The enshittification and lack of market understanding (or care) of the major European car brands is a topic by itself. They may be rightfully complaining right now but a lot of their woes are self inflicted.
I drive a Cupra (a Spanish brand, a spinoff of SEAT, owned by Volkswagen) and when I was driving my car out of the dealership I had to tell the salesman I was not interested in signing up for the free app they were trying to foist me. He was dumbfounded. The model was selling like hotcakes yet I was the first customer that had outright refused to sign up for their shitty app. They pulled off the inevitable switcheroo, it now costs a monthly fee and I don’t want to think about what insidious things they can do with it.
Chances are the dealer and manufacturer can still get telemetry data through the cellular modem built into the car. You will need to remove it to be reasonably sure that data isn't extracted.
The issue is that data is also shared with third parties, such as insurance companies and possibly the government. I could not, in good conscience, drive a car that spies on me and can be effectively controlled remotely.
Because it would be unpopular, not because it can't be done.
Rest assured, when the time is right and the average consumer complacent enough, they will require a subscription. Yes, I can see the future. Call me an Oracle. No, not that Oracle.
Over the past many decades, we're seeing standards slip and slip as our standards for goods are constantly challenged. What was unthinkable just 10 years ago is now business as usual.
If you told someone in 2005 they would have to upload their ID and scan their face to use a chat application, they would call you crazy. If you told someone in 2015 that Google Glass was gonna come back and this time people would like being recorded and would willingly give up their camera feed, they would think you're insane.
I like that email respects the time of both parties. Either can reply when convenient. When a reply requires careful consideration or phrasing you have the time to do so. When you are otherwise engaged you don’t have to stop and handle each one now. When you need to reference it later it is often much easier than finding a chat. It’s almost the only relaxing comms method left apart from mailing a letter.
One of the reasons I like mutt is that I can easily edit the “From:” header (I have Postfix configured with multiple email aliases for my primary email account).
In my experience, most mail user agents allow editing the Subject header. Even Outlook Web Application that I have to use in work allows me to change the Subject line when a conversation thread has veered off-topic, e.g., “Server replacement [was: Windows 11 upgrades of client PCs in Accounts]“
Even with no permanent install there are lots of good options out there, especially the new PC fan air purifiers. If you're just starting out check out HouseFresh for their excellent air purifier reviews.[0]
If you don't mind a slightly nerdy appearance and just want the "Engineer's Filter," Airfanta has a PC fan cube with a good cost-performance ratio. Tl;dr coverage per device is 300-400 square feet = 28-37 square meters or one room, whichever is smaller. Just run it 24/7 on 50-70% depending on noise comfort. Power draw is 9 watts.
That's sized based on ASHRAE's 5 air changes per hour guideline, which is intended to quickly filter pollution as it leaks through cracks in a building.
Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1]
> Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1]
While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
>I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers
That's a common misconception. They still atomize bacteria from the tank because nobody ever cleans & sterilizes their dehumidifier tank often enough. Distilled water users still report high indoor particle counts when it runs, which is how you know it's an ineffective prevention.
The cost of distilled water every year (even making it at home) means ultrasonic humidifiers are the most expensive option too.
>while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.
This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
> Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.
> This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work.
This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.
> reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes
Are you suggesting the link isn't causal? Because your argument only makes sense if you think air pollution particles aren't actually the cause of lung damage, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus.
The fact that you have to bring up amyloid plaques is especially a red flag, since this is famously a rare example of the failure of scientific consensus.
The point is that you can't know if an intervention works until you actually test it. There are tons of possibilities, including that some pm2.5 particles cause lung damage and some don't, in which case overall pm2.5 exposure would be correlated to negative health effects but using an air filter to reduce dust in your home might have little or no health benefit. We don't know yet.
Generally avoiding pm2.5 particles is a reasonable precaution but you can't say that things like air filters are actually the most effective health intervention someone can do until you test that experimentally. That's simply not how stuff like this works. There are virtually infinite health interventions that seem plausible but don't actually work when tested.
As with a treatment for alzheimer's disease, cancer, or heart disease, you can't simply say that X is correlated with disease, an intervention Y reduces X, so therefore Y must have positive health effects without actually testing Y.
Working as intended. Even the way you framed it. Every family member has a separate physically distinct iPad, paid for separately. It's never considered that two people might be able to use the same hardware, which is the question here.
> Hard to share the things people use at the same time.
Yes, but if it's your goal to have fewer cars, then you'd make an effort not to need to use it at the same time. If that's not what you're trying to do, fine. My wife and I share a car. It's slightly inconvenient sometimes, but really not bad at all. For our particular life anyway.
So here we're talking about iPads. Some families need multiple devices for various reasons. Some don't except for the fact that iPads don't support accounts. No one's saying you would have to use them. But you're not allowed to.
1 car for our family of four seems to work fine for us in the city. Hard to imagine people with different living situations.
I held off a while on giving my youngest child his own iPad because he and his brother were playing nicely together on one more often than not. It turned iPad time into social play-together time.
What's the point here? Then you'll need another car?
Remember, we're comparing to iPads. Apple intentionally hobbles them to induce demand for multiple iPads. This isn't a question of being allowed to own multiple iPads/cars. It's a question of being artificially prevented from owning a single one.
The point isn't that you have to commit to being a single-car household for life. It's that at some points in time, you can be.
I’m 51 and I can’t remember ever going to a house with only one TV. Even my grandparents had multiple TVs and I definitely had one in my room since I was 4.
A quick Google search says that 50% of households had more than one TV in 1980.
Same. I grew up in the 80's and we always had at least 2 TVs for a family of four. My sister and I both had small TVs in our bedroom once we were teens, so that was one TV per person at that point! To be fair, they were mostly used for video games...
I'm not being sarcastic. And I really don't think my household is that far above average. We have three "living room" type areas. One in each bedroom. One in my office. One in my wife's office. I'd wager the American average is >1 per person in the house.
Before we downsized to a 2 bedroom condo (where we do have 3), we had 6 in our house - our bedroom, son’s bedroom, home gym, living room, wife’s room and guest bedroom.
