Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sgerenser's commentslogin

Did you read the article? I thought his whole point is that little piece of folk wisdom didn't turn out to be true in actual testing.

Im not sure about bathtubs, but in the U.S. it's apparently legal to sell lavatory sinks without an overflow. Ask me how I know.

This puzzled me and I looked it up, and yes, sinks without overflow meet code [1] (but not tubs). So your situation was apparently legal.

But the sibling comment to this one, where a sink had an overflow, but it was not connected, did not meet code [also 1].

Go figure. There must be some reasoning there, but I'm confused as to what it is.

https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2018/m...


Code sometimes makes allowances for situations which aren't ideal, as long as they aren't deceptive or creating a false sense of security.

So if you have old two-prong outlets in your house from back when, those are allowed.

If you replace them with a three-pronged outlet which is ungrounded, that breaks code.

If the three-pronged outlet is a GFCI outlet labeled with NO ELECTRICAL GROUND, that is allowed.


Well, it's also legal to sell food that tastes bad. Doesn't mean you should buy it.

My last apartment had the overflow drain hole but it wasn't attached to anything. The water just went directly into the wooden cabinet underneath. Madness. Literally worse than not having the hole because it reduced the capacity of the sink. This is what happens when landlords who DGAF hire handymen who DGAF to do all the work on their units.

To be fair to the potential handyman or contractor many overflow drains are integrated into the sink drain before they attach anything. It might have been the landlord buying temu style sinks with fake overflow holes.

Many overflow drains are not or are poorly connected. If you buy a new home, the inspector will usually skip to overflow test because it will likely fail.

I live in Raleigh, NC and it’s a going joke the amount of travelers or newcomers who refer to the area as RDU (the Raleigh/Durham airport code). I guess it’s a common problem elsewhere.

Again, the Volt already blazed this trail since 2011. The engine automatically comes on at least once every 6 weeks, and overall ensures that a single tank of gas doesn’t stay for more than ~6 months IIRC. I’ve never heard of any fuel-related engine problems on Volts.

That’s a bit of a stretch… most of the announced EREVs are using pretty conventional 4 or even 6-cylinder engines (like the 3.6L Pentastar V6 in the upcoming Jeep Wagoneer REEV). Even though it isn’t connected to the wheels, the engine is capable of keeping the car charged and running normally once the battery runs out. AFAIK, the intention is to be able to drive for hundreds of miles on the engine, not just limp along a dozen or so miles to get to a charger.

No, I don’t think they do. That’s why AppleTV is so expensive compared to a Roku.

The article says that? I searched for Xfinity and nothing came up.

Watch the original video posted yesterday.

I went and checked out the section of the video where he talks about XFinityWifi networks [1]. Literally nothing was tested, he just said “there are reports of devices (not TVs, just “devices”) connecting to XFinityWifi open networks… so even just not letting TVs connect to your WiFI won’t keep you safe!” That’s it!? Why not actually test it!?

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6IFVTcM28KA&ra=m


Are you confused between TVs selling your viewing habits using automated content recognition (which they all do and is well documented), vs TVs finding nefarious ways to still upload that data even after disabling network access? Because the latter is conspiracy theories and there's no evidence of it happening (and it would be trivial to verify if it was).

Except in the article that is literally parent of this discussion thread? Did you even RTFA?

It just says it stores it to upload later if/when its connected, not that it uses a 5G connection or connects to random open Wifi networks to upload it even if you never connected it to your own network. Did you read it?

What exactly is the problem with UniFi? I’ve always thought Ubiquiti gear is generally pretty good. At least a better option than e.g. Cisco for the home/small business customer.

I hear this a lot “TVs will just connect to a nearby unprotected WiFi network!” But I ve never seen any evidence of it. It appears to just be speculation, unless you have an actual source?

Its always speculation that would be trivial to actually test.

1. Do not connect to network 2. Create unauthenticated WiFi network 3. Monitor WiFi network

Strange no one has ever done this simple af test to backup their claims


If TV manufacturers wanted to be underhanded then they could actually make this much harder to detect by delaying the connection to new unauthenticated networks for e.g. months or only after seeing another device connect and then using that device's MAC when it is not around.

Still super easily detectable even if they clone a MAC.

I have an unprotected guest network with a captive portal and an LG C1. I have never seen the LG pop up in the logs for the guest network.

They could also use something like Amazon Sidewalk or ATSC 3.0's dedicated return channel.

They could (although I’m not sure of the 80Kbps that Amazon sidewalk allows is really sufficient for the purpose of uploading ACR data), but is there any evidence that any TV manufacturer actually is? The reality is, why would they bother? 95% percent of people that buy a “Smart TV” hook it right up to their WiFi as soon as they take it out of the box.

ACR isn't generally a lossless 4K snap shot but indexed 32x32 pixel blocks from arbitrary locations on screen. In some cases it's even a fuzzy hash of the content source, and while 80Kbps isn't a lot, you can still push out data in a timely manner.

80Kbps is enough, after all they don't want to accidentally ddos their server.

Because they don't. It's too much guesswork, and honestly pretty complicated. From the user perspective the TV would appear to go offline every now and then, so also somewhat easily detected.

It's much easier to just throw a $10 5G modem in there, pay the $2/year subscription fee for service, and extract data that way. Assuming a 5-10 year relevant lifespan of the TV, they'd throw $20-$30 on top of the sales price for the modem and 10 years of service.

The 5G modem could run completely independent of the wifi network, be a completely different circuit, and you'd never know it was there.


Except they don’t do that either. I’m not aware of any TV that bundles a 5G modem. Are you?

almost all new cars have cellular modems reporting all kinds of shit, something like over 90% of new cars. what makes you think tv companies aren’t?

even the ones that aren’t yet, we’d be incredibly incredibly naive to think it’s not on their radar.


Cars having 5G connectivity is something that consumers actually want, it’s well documented on the spec sheets and marketing material, and obviously in a car WiFi is not going to work in most places. None of those things apply to TVs.

For one, you can take apart your TV and see that it doesn't have a SIM card

Can you spot a device like this : https://www.intersign.dk/cdn/shop/products/868e2a0dce897d05a...

The linked image shows a module meant for easy integration, but it could also simply be a part of the main board of the TV. They could "hide" the GSM antenna alongside the wifi antenna.


Seeing how things have recently been developing, I'd bet on it already being the case or at least in active development.

If you think its already the case, how come nobody can provide any evidence of it? As stated above, it’s trivial to test. Surely if Brand X was doing this, there’d already be blog posts, youtube videos, HN posts, etc. about it?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: