Samsung TVs (and probably others) will connect to other Samsung TVs in range and exfiltrate data via that route… merely not connecting the TV doesn’t present data harvesting
Iirc, Amazon uses a tool they call “sidewalk” for this purpose
There’s something called Wi-Fi Direct but it requires explicit pairing. And Sidewalk isn’t on TVs. There’s no evidence of Samsung TVs trying to use each other as relays.
>Samsung TVs (and probably others) will connect to other Samsung TVs in range and exfiltrate data via that route
Do you have a source for this? Because the implication is that my Samsung TV will connect to my neighbours Samsung TV, and send my PII through their network without my consent, which would be a huge deal in Europe.
In that case, jailbreak it, or open it and unsolder the wifi antenna, or put some well placed copper tape until you no longer see any wifi traffic from the TV from other wifi capable devices running a wifi packet inspector.
The TV belongs to you and it will obey you with modest effort.
Sony has treated me well and I don’t have it internet connected. It’s the one brand I haven’t seen nag when you have the internet disconnected. Was also easy to just opt right out of connecting it. Pretty standard google tv too.
I want to know how to disable their external communication via wifi, I'd like to see how they are exfiltrating info. If I don't connect them to my wifi, apparently they connect to Xfinity wifi at your neighbors house.
I've started hosting most of my private projects on a self hosted gitea, but one roadblock I've found is oidc auth - from GitHub actions I can publish to the Google play store, or npm, without needing to manage any static credentials. I know I'll need to manage some kind of secrets/identity when self hosting, though I'm still looking for nicer solutions than a bunch of static secrets for individual services.
At my company we explicitly tell candidates what parts they can do with and without AI.
It’s not hypocritical like you seem to be implying. It’s seeing you still have a brain and can do the job with or without the tools. Otherwise we would just prompt AI ourselves…
Access is a whole package with form designers, widgets, scripting, etc. so that you can build an entire distributable app from it. SQLite's a brilliant little DB but it only covers a tiny portion of what Access does.
I kinda loathe access for any number of reasons, but appreciate the dev tools it put into the hands of non-developers. A great many people who'd be passive users on most systems were able to build apps to meet their business and requirements, and although Access was janky as hell, that's very, very cool. I think it's most spiritually similar to HyperCard on Mac: you wouldn't want to write a whole large app in it, and if you're an experienced developer there are any number of tools you'd rather write programs with. But if you weren't a traditional developer (e.g. an office worker or a student or a home computer enthusiast, etc.) it gave you a pleasant hand-holding process for making your ideas come to life. I respect that.
Gambas was neat. I think we also looked at Kivy at the time, and I think there were a couple of other Python RAD systems that aimed to be similar to VFP in spirit, although not even slightly compatible.
How would it have helped? Net neutrality doesn’t mean you can’t sell your customers different bandwidth guarantees.
Net neutrality is only about the connections between a provider and external networks, not about how a company handles bandwidth contention amongst its customers.
Net neutrality would fix a problem like “only Facebook is accessible inside crowded stadiums” not “AT&T customers who pay more get better connections in crowded stadiums”
Net neutrality as generally understood says nothing about being able to pay more for a higher service tier from your ISP.
It's entirely on the publisher side: net neutrality was an attempt to avoid ISPs getting paid extra---costs that would be passed onto you---in exchange for making your experience on site A be better than your experience with site B (or service, vs site).
Think: "Oh, yeah, Netflix 4k works great on your new Comcast plan! But if you want Hulu 4k, you're gonna need to pay us more, because Netflix pays us to make their shit work better than Hulu's if you don't!"
Net neutrality means that providers don't discriminate based on the kind of traffic, that you get internet access, not just access to particular services.
They can absolutely meter and limit your connection as long as one byte is one byte, no matter its origin. They can also discriminate based on the technology they provide (4G, 5G, fiber...). Net neutrality is not about preventing "pay to win", obviously, you can get a better connection if you pay more. It is about fair competition between online services.
People still believe this? Google pays their ISP. I pay my ISP. Google does not pay my ISP. Why is my ISP's response to the amount of traffic I use demanding to bill someone other than me?
To be clear, Google was doing this out of self-interest. Paying user ISPs for access to those users is not a cost they want to pay. But it's the same as any other protection racket. A local shopkeeper has personal reasons to not want to pay off the mob, but that doesn't mean their position is wrong.
ISP's spent $$$$$ against net-neutrality cause they wanted to get paid twice (Google already was paying for their side of the bandwidth as the source).
When you add the second line---pretending that that nobody funding all the anti-net-neutrality let-big-ISPs-do-what-they-want stories that pro-legacy-company Republicans ate up---it makes me think this is some astroturfing, since it goes from "maybe this person fell for the ISP claims" to straight-up dishonest intentionally-misleading-fallacy.
Google was obviously on the side of "don't get charged twice" but ultimately net-neutrality was a tech enthusiast consumer position that came out of a desire to avoid getting charged more on the basis of what sites you did or didn't want to watch, and ISP's trying to influence where you visited by cutting deals to get paid to prioritize A vs B.
(Hell, ISPs were already getting paid "twice" for the bandwidth in some ways, e.g. when your "100Mb" plan only works at that speeds if your neighbors aren't using it much. That's a different sort of incomplete-advertising trickery that helped create the whole "too many people using Youtube are saturating the network!" "problem" in the first place.)
(And high-bandwidth publishers already were making private peering/colo-of-servers deals with ISPs and CDNs that I don't believe would've been prohibited by net neutrality, so the 'protection racket' aspect of the ISP's game was maybe more arguably wanting to be paid thrice? Or wanting to be paid without providing that colo service?)
Iirc, Amazon uses a tool they call “sidewalk” for this purpose
reply