I don't mean to be dismissive, but isn't this old news? Hasn't it been the case that _all_ "smart" TVs have been spying on users since they came out? I've personally operated as if they are: my TV is not connected to the internet. At least, not through my internet connection. It's not on my wifi, nor is it connected to my LAN.
We knew they were reporting back our watching habits of the built-in stuff. Then we learned they were doing video capture on HDMI ports to report back on what we watched on external sources (Xbox, Apple TV, etc). Then we learned that they did botnet-like stuff in the background even when they were switched off.
NOW we're learning that they're spying with their internal microphone when switched off.
A real problem is that you might not even need to give these internet access. If your neighbor gives their TV internet access and it can establish a mesh connection then it might be able to exfiltrate data that way. I don't know of any TVs that do this, but it's always been a possibility.
Another possibility is even if you don't give it access to your wifi, if you eventually give your TV away or sell it, the new user could connect it to wifi and if it has any persistent storage then it could upload all of its stored data about you at that point.
Companies that do this need to end their entire brand, because they're just helping the CCP.
> A real problem is that you might not even need to give these internet access. If your neighbor gives their TV internet access and it can establish a mesh connection then it might be able to exfiltrate data that way.
No TV has ever been shown to do this. Please stop spreading this rumor.
I didn't say a TV had been, if you read. I will absolutely not stop spreading the possibility, because it is in fact a possibility. This is more true now than it has ever been, because even if a manufacturer doesn't do this we're now in a world where AI could potentially exploit devices and make hops like this. The risk is higher in areas with higher population density though, like multi-story apartments.
We know that device connection sharing is a thing that has occurred and it's not unreasonable to see the risk of it coming to TVs.
Partly it annoys me because the answer to the question "how do I protect myself?" is simply "don't connect it to wifi" and that's it. These rumors make it all complicated to answer when it's really not that deep. This isn't deep NSA spy craft, it's shitty software uploading logs and half-assed data collection to the Internet. That's it.
But if I'm honest, it's mostly because I'm disappointed that they don't do this. It'd be a fascinating story. Imagine the braindead balls it'd take to make a feature that insanely abusive, and how good the outrage out it would be to read. That'd be a killer story for someone to break, it'd be like the xz backdoor or the Snowden NSA leaks. Instead we get these dumb "Mew under a truck"-quality grade school rumors in comments sections and it's just so stupid and disappointing.
(And honestly-honestly a tiny part of it is trying to goad one of these commenters into actually doing the work to find someone who really is doing this, so I can read that story.)
The story is both a little overblown and a little underblown, just different parts of it. More people need to be thinking about the feature level of devices and understand that "off" doesn't really mean it most of the time. Does the TV need a camera? Does it really need a microphone? Does it need to be smart at all? The matter of whether it is abused is increasingly less important than whether it can be abused. There have been all kinds of clever abuses we've been lucky not to see over the past 3 decades, but I'm afraid that relative quiet may be over.
I still don't understand why there wasn't an absolute outrage about internet providers putting their own routers inside your network and blocking other routers by default unless you call them. Suddenly all these providers have managed hardware inside your network and if they wanted to, they could scoop up all of the LAN traffic.
On top of that, some of them even portion out wireless to people outside your network from the router you're paying for while increasing attack surface.
The big tech companies, the providers, the government and foreign adversaries are winning bigtime. It does feel like there's a little bit of hope that people are wising up about AI exploding privacy and security risks, so more people are thinking about the dumbest things which have become the norms.
The guy can't read, he only knows how to keep saying "there's no evidence TVs do this" over and over, even when you already said there wasn't evidence yet.
This is straight up dystopian level spying. Streaming microphone inputs all the time, knowing everything that is displayed on the screens via object recognition and stuff. Scraping your local network. If I’m not mistaken there is the possibility for the tv to connect to public/open networks to send this stuff without you knowing. Magically syncing with your phone. It’s truly terrible, and a class action is all but guaranteed to come. Gamers nexus has a great video on this.
No, you're not up to date with the latest news. There's a separate feature that records you all the time, transcribes it to text and uses it to select ads for you
Every time see Mr Beast (I don't watch any of his stuff, just accidentally see promos on Prime sometimes), he reminds me of Homer Simpson's forced smile in the Simpsons' espiode "Re-Nedufication" [0].
Heh. Anyone remember the ping of death[0]? A lot (most?) of computers on the early internet didn't properly handle large packets, _especially_ from ICMP pings. Once upon a time, you could send a single ping w/ a packet size of 65536 and crash the remote.
While your example of `sum` is a nice, pure function, it'll unfortunately blow up in python on even moderately sized inputs (we're talking thousands of elements, not millions) due to lack of tail calls in Python (currently) and the restrictions on recursion depth. The CPython interpreter as of 3.14 [0] is now capable of using tail calls in the interpreter itself, but it's not yet in Python, proper.
Yeah, to actually use tail-recursive patterns (except for known-to-be-sharply-constrained problems) in Python (or, at least, CPython), you need to use a library like `tco`, because of the implementation limits. Of course the many common recursive patterns can be cast as map, filter, or reduce operations, and all three of those are available as functions in Python's core (the first two) or stdlib (reduce).
Updating one or more variables in a loop naturally maps to reduce with the updated variable(s) being (in the case of more than one being fields of) the accumulator object.
No, it isn't. Any decent datacenter will have on-site generation in event of power grid failure, anyway. When I was an intern, the company I worked for would routinely go off grid during the summer at a call from the electric company. The electric company actually gave us significant incentives to do so, because us running on our own 12MW generator was effectively like the grid operator farming out a 12MW peaker unit.
Not only will a data center of a generator, they will test it regularly and if it doesn't work get it fixed.
The power company has a long list of who has backup power. I know of one factory where the generator was installed in the 1920s on a boiler from the 1880's - it is horribly inefficient, but the power company still gives the owners incentive to keep it working because for 4x the normal cost of power and 12 hours notice that generator can run the entire town it is in, which they do every 5 years when things really go wrong with the grid.
> they will test it regularly and if it doesn't work get it fixed.
What is your definition of regularly, and what qualifies as getting it fixed? I know lots of places that had things scheduled, but on the day of, something "came up" that the test was pushed. I've seen others where they tested by only firing up the generator, but didn't actually use it to power the facility. I've also seen repair tags that sat "unlooked" at for years.
Not every facility is managed/financed the same for such a blanket statement as yours.
There was recent news that a datacenter is going to be built that will consume few times more power than all homes in the state. I don't think they are gonna have on-site backup power. Although they'll probably have on-site powerplant for normal operations.
> that EU regulation requires their timestamps to be within 100 microseconds of UTC,
It's the same in the US. It's covered under CAT NMS (Consolidated Audit Trail, National Market System). Probably too much information at: https://www.catnmsplan.com/
Yes, and the fact that this has been a global regulation for years suggests that it isn't all that special. Outfits like Goldman Sachs meet this regulation with fewer blogs.
I started using C# towards the end of the 1.0 beta or maybe just after RTM...I embarrassingly called it "C pound" for quite a while. Because, even as someone born and raised in the US, pretty much my only exposure to the symbol was in the context of phones. "Call me at blah, pound one-two-three" as in the extension is "#123".
Remember, it was originally release +20 years ago (goddamn, I feel old now); recorded video or even audio over the internet were much, much, MUCH rarer then, when "high-speed" speed internet for a lot of people meant a 56K modem.
Back then, most developer's first exposure to C# then was likely in either print form (books or maybe MSDN magazine).
You can, but in the context of the standard, you'd be wrong to do so. Undefined behavior and unspecified behavior have specific, different, meanings in context of the C and C++ standards.
> You can, but in the context of the standard, you'd be wrong to do so. Undefined behavior and unspecified behavior have specific, different, meanings in context of the C and C++ standards.
> Conflate them at your own peril.
I think that ryao was not conflating them, but literally just pointing out, as a joke, that "UB" can stand for "undefined behavior" or "unspecified behavior." Taking advantage of this is inviting dangerous ambiguity, which is why ryao's suggestion ended with ":)," but I think that saying that it's wrong is an overstateent.
> Would you rather have a HFT trade go correctly and a few nanoseconds slower or a few nanoseconds faster but with some edge case bugs related to variable initialisation ?
As someone who works in the HFT space: it depends. How frequently and how bad are the bad-trade cases? Some slop happens. We make trade decisions with hardware _without even seeing an entire packet coming in on the network_. Mistakes/bad trades happen. Sometimes it results in trades that don't go our way or missed opportunities.
Just as important as "can we do better?" is "should we do better?". Queue priority at the exchange matters. Shaving nanoseconds is how you get a competitive edge.
> I would posit is it things like network latency that would dominate.
Everything matters. Everything is measured.
edit to add: I'm not saying we write software that either has or relies upon unitialized values. I'm just saying in such a hypothetical, it's not a cut and dry "do the right thing (correct according to the language spec)" decision.
We make trade decisions with hardware _without even seeing an entire packet coming in on the network_
Wait what????
Can you please educate me on high frequency trading... , like I don't understand what's the point of it & lets say one person has created a hft bot then why the need of other bot other than the fact of different trading strats and I don't think these are profitable / how they compare in the long run with the boglehead strategy??
This is a vast, _vast_ over-simplification: The primary "feature" of HFT is providing liquidity to market.
HFT firms are (almost) always willing to buy or sell at or near the current market price. HFT firms basically race each other for trade volume from "retail" traders (and sometimes each other). HFTs make money off the spread - the difference between the bid & offer - typically only a cent. You don't make a lot of money on any individual trade (and some trades are losers), but you make money on doing a lot of volume. If done properly, it doesn't matter which direction the market moves for an HFT, they'll make money either way as long as there's sufficient trading volume to be had.
But honestly, if you want to learn about HFT, best do some actual research on it - I'm not a great source as I'm just the guy that keeps the stuff up and running; I'm not too involved in the business side of things. There's a lot of negative press about HFTs, some positive.
> I realize this all probably sounds very silly to someone born before 1980
I was born after 1980 and I think you're beating a dead horse, here. You're conflating accessibility with convenience. Not just with this comment, but others you've made in this thread.
> those goddamn BIC pens all go bad (ink dries up or something), before I use even 5% of one of them.
Grab the pen by the end opposite the nib, give it a good shake for a few seconds, lick the nib, scribble on a scrap piece of paper until it starts writing again. Problem solved. You can't resurrect a dead laptop or computer by licking and shaking it (at least I've never succeeded in doing so).
reply