Samsung TVs should be regularly virus-checked, the company says - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48664251 <comment><USER2> The reason TV manufacturers want to have connected TVs is not to provide utility to the user, but so that they can monetize a user's data. The "smart" part runs recognition software to identify what content you are watching, how long you watch it, records it, uploads it to the manufacturer's service, and then the manufacturer can aggregate it and sell it off. The Verge interviewed Vizio's CEO [0], who stated

> This is a cutthroat industry. It's a 6-percent margin industry, right? I > mean, you know it's pretty ruthless. You could say it's self-inflicted, or > you could say there's a greater strategy going on here, and there is. The > greater strategy is I really don't need to make money off of the TV. I need > to cover my cost. And then I need to make money off those TVs.

Apple had to directly fight this when they brought their TV app over to smart TVs. It's also why I will never let a TV on my network, and will always use a separate streaming box.

[0] - [https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit- vizio-tv-bill-baxter-interview-vergecast-ces-2019)

<comment><USER3> How much can you sell it for? Really - let's say you have my entire viewing history for a year, let's say I'm from a valuable demographic, how much would that be worth? A dollar? 10 dollars?

I've just bought a tv for thousands of dollars from the company, selling my data doesn't seem very cost effective, especially considering the PR backlash of some scandal that could come out of it.

<comment><USER4> _> How much can you sell it for? A dollar? 10 dollars_

When we were a Nielsen family they would include something like $4 in cash in each week's mailing as a gift. That's on top of the cost of producing the surveys, mailing costs, transcribing the viewing records, assembling the results, and then all the marketing efforts to the networks to convince them this data is valuable. It must cost at least $50 per family per month for their viewing data, which has at least a week latency before it can be known, and is probably always inaccurate.

Smart TV viewing data on the other hand is completely accurate and instantaneous. So just for the show viewing data to assemble more accurate ratings it's probably worth more than $10 per week/$520 a year. But that's only one sort of data that is being collected and one sort of service provided. Nielsen doesn't sell information to advertisers about a specific known family's interests, or to allow narrowly targeted ads. But Vizio is able to sell that possibility. Do they make $500 a year off of each connected TV? $1000? Even if only $150, over four years that's $600.

I recently bought a 4K HDR smart TV for $199. It was a significant upgrade to my previous TV. The panel itself costs more than the TV. In fact buying a HDMI monitor of comparable size and resolution, without a receiver or smart functions, runs over $2000. It's possible these TVs are being sold with up to a 90% up front subsidy of the cost because the economic value of voluntarily placing such a powerful surveillance device and accepting the mandatory click through contract is a lot more than $1800. Similar to cell phone economics. I bought a brand new no-contract pay-as-you-go iPhone for $99. It definitely cost more than that to manufacture. How can they sell it for this price? We know. Because if I do use it, it's locked to one carrier and I have to buy refresh cards from them. I have no obligation to ever activate it, but most buyers do so, and the carrier will then in most cases make back their subsidy manyfold. Same for the $10 no-contract Android phone I bought before this. Both are good phones. Both cost way more to make than I paid new, as with the Smart TV.

<comment><USER5> > When we were a Nielsen family they would include something like $4 in cash > in each week's mailing as a gift.

Nielsen ratings only collected a representative sample which makes each sample orders of magnitude more valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's another case for not owning a Samsung Smart TV. Mine, which I bought for approximately £1.3k in late 2016 received a firmware "upgrade" in mid-2017 that inserted advertising into the TV's UI.

Upon contacting Samsung to complain they informed me that it was _my fault_ that they were appearing due to _applications that I have installed_. The ads all originated from applications that were pre-installed that were locked and un-removable.

In the end I had to work out how to block the TV from contacting Samsung's ad servers at the DNS level, although now a PiHole is an easier solution to this problem.

[https://gist.github.com/peteryates/b44b70d19ccd52f62d66cdd4b...](https://gist.github.com/peteryates/b44b70d19ccd52f62d66cdd4bcef1e52)

<comment><USER7> LG TVs also contain ads in the home menu and other places, and there is no official way to opt out. Sony TVs appear to be the most user friendly options if you'd rather not see ads on a premium device.

[https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/ads-in-smart- tv](https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/ads-in-smart-tv)

<comment><USER8> I've also tried my best to avoid purchasing any Sony products...ever since around 2005 [0]. While i do acknowledged that some of their products historically have been good quality...I've tried my best to use my wallet to vote my conscience.

[0] = [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

<comment><USER9> Thus, the problem with Adam Smith's Invisible Hand in the modern world. I salute you for sticking to your guns, but I think we all could have predicted that Sony wasn't going to suffer any significant consequences from that.

There's 10 major brands of TVs, and 10 attributes by which consumers decide what to buy. Even if you could got 95% of consumers to agree (ha) that one brand is the absolute worst at the most important attribute, it's still going to be the best at something else.

There simply aren't a sufficient number of axes of control here to influence change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _> "Prevent malicious software attacks on your TV by scanning for viruses on your TV every few weeks," _

This reads like an Onion parody article but unfortunately, that security precaution is reality.

To generalize the Samsung example further, this is why I don't believe it's realistic that decentralization can happen via _average homeowners_ owning a "server appliance" that serves up webpages, social media profiles, videos, email, etc. I made a previous comment on how disciplined security practices are too tricky for non-techies.[0]

Yes, a bunch of techies can run personal servers (Raspberry Pis, Freedombox, etc) to run a decentralized Q&A site to replace Stackoverflow. Or maybe run a decentralized discussion forum to replace HN. However, a bunch of grandmothers cannot be expected to maintain their own web appliances to run a decentralized cooking recipes website.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11861683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11861683)

<comment><USER11> Grandmothers and everyone else already use edge routers/modems that can be centrally managed and updated. Edge servers can be locally or centrally managed. If centrally managed, they can be decoupled from the telco, i.e. competition among "edge server management services" instead of a land-bound monopoly. Techies can optionally enable local management.

<comment><USER12> I don't know a single Grandmother than keeps her WiFi router updated and well configured.

<comment><USER13> More and more routers self update these days, which is absolutely the right choice for 95% of users.

That's something I don't get about the Samsung setup here actually. Just run the scan (from the video it takes about a second?) automatically without the user needing to. Then you don't have to make awful promo videos about users needing to do a scan.

<comment><USER14> No, but then the HN user set would be posting outraged medium.com blogs about how their TV is stealth-updating behind their back without their approval.

<comment><USER15> I assume Samsung TVs already auto-update which makes it even more puzzling that the virus scanning isn't also automatic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone have a list of IPs and domains Samsung uses which I can block in my outgoing firewall rules?

Or alternatively all IPs Netflixe uses so I can whitelist those.

EDIT:

From another comment's link.

      log-ingestion-eu.samsungacr.com
      lcprd1.samsungcloudsolution.net
      osb-apps.samsungqbe.com
      acr0.samsungcloudsolution.com
      ads.samsungads.com
      www.samsungotn.net
      osb.samsungqbe.com
      cdn.samsungcloudsolution.com
      www.samsungrm.net
      osb-eusvc.samsungqbe.com
      oempprd.samsungcloudsolution.com
      time.samsungcloudsolution.com
      noticecdn.samsungcloudsolution.com
      notice.samsungcloudsolution.com
      otn.samsungcloudcdn.com
      multiscreen.samsung.com
      gpm.samsungqbe.com
      configprd.samsungcloudsolution.net
      ypu.samsungelectronics.com
      kpu.samsungelectronics.com
      sas.samsungcloudsolution.com
      otnprd9.samsungcloudsolution.net
      otnprd8.samsungcloudsolution.net
      otnprd11.samsungcloudsolution.net
      otnprd10.samsungcloudsolution.net
      apps.samsungcloudcdn.com

<comment><USER17> Can't you just block the TV's MAC address entirely in your router.

<comment><USER18> Or just don't enter your WiFi password on it.

<comment><USER19> Our smart TV lives on it's own wifi network, I super don't trust it to interact nicely with other devices on our home network. All the other smart home stuff (smart led lights, etc) lives on it's own network as well.

<comment><USER18> But then it can self-update and install crapware without any interaction anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Conceptually embedded devices shouldn't even have writeable storage for malware to persist. This doesn't require a special operating system or a kernel patch, Linux (which is popular for these types of devices) natively supports read only storage.

You can have a small read/write volume where update bins are placed. Upon reboot, a pre-boot environment checks the bin's cryptographic signature, and if it passses it then extracts the bin, overwriting the the read only filesystem and a second reboot occurs allowing normal boot into the updated OS where the file system is again read only.

This is how e.g. the Playstation works. Amongst several vehicle manufacturer's infotainment units. Even Windows uses a pre-boot environment to write certain "hard lock" files and registry areas. This is not wild "pie in the sky" thinking, this is an industry norm or was.

Why does a smart TV that's meant primarily for streaming content directly from the internet need a R/W file system? Settings? Couldn't that be stored in a micro-volume without execute flag and SELinux limits?

<comment><USER21> And what if the cryptographic hashes are broken, stolen, or whatever? Once you're in the system, if there's rewriteable storage at all, it can be compromised.

If you want to stream, the apps need to be updated as streaming service providers update their systems from time to time.

<comment><USER20> > And what if the cryptographic hashes are broken, stolen, or whatever?

You've still improved the scope of exploitation from:

\- Need an RCE (remote code execution) in any service on the device for a persistent threat

To:

\- You need an RCE in any service on the device

\- You also need to be able to generate a cryptographically signed update which will install for persistent threat

That's a win. That's a BIG win. Particularly as regular updates can replace compromised cryptographic credentials.

You're essentially arguing the "if the solution is imperfect, we should do nothing" fallacy. You haven't proposed a better alternative, just argued that no action is better than an action that falls below perfection.

> If you want to stream, the apps need to be updated as streaming service > providers update their systems from time to time.

Which may require a reboot. It is unfortunate, but makes the device more secure and less susceptible to hardware originated data corruption (since the volumes can be completely verified for correctness, compared to the source images which can also be verified for correctness via HMAC).

There's no specific set standard for how bin updates work. They can range from complete file system updates to incremental updates.

<comment><USER21> I really don't get what you're saying. None of your proposals would solve the problem being discussed. Are cryptographic hashes not already completely common-place? That was standard even 10 years ago, if only just to make sure the files are not corrupt.

In actuality, running virus checks is a fine idea, particularly if the process can be automated and updated for newer threats.

<comment><USER22> It seems you're conflating cryptographic hash with a digital signature.

Digitally signed updates via pre-boot environment with a read only post-boot environment is an effective way to solve the problem being discussed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is precisely why my "smart TV" isn't allowed on my network.

Millions of dollars of work to theoretically save the user on a $10 HDMI cable (but, more honestly, just to make consumers buy new TVs every couple of years regardless of whether they need one or not, simply because the "smart" unit is out-of-date). Sometimes this industry needs a boot to the head.

<comment><USER24> Despite all the trying I have, I cannot get my mom or grandmother to ever understand switching HDMI sources. The SmartTV has most functions built in with a single remote control. This is crazy significant to the appeal.

<comment><USER23> My cable box has a remote that's able to turn off and on my TV and switch the TV's sources. I haven't taken the TV's remote out of its original packaging.

It's 2019 - this is a solution in search of a problem.

<comment><USER25> Seems by your posts you're assuming everyone already has a cable box + service since you think the TV saves you a mere HDMI cable.

Meanwhile I'm not sure I've even had roommates or been to someone's house my age (25-40) in the last 5 years that had cable service. It's always the same: everyone just navigates to the TV's built-in Netflix/HBO/Amazon/etc. app and puts something on.

If you think everyone in the world has a cable box, then I understand why you don't understand smart TVs. But your premise is mistaken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is it even possible to buy dumb tvs anymore? I have been hanging on to my 2014 model (and will probably try to use it for another decade) because the new tvs I interact with have ruined basic tv interactions. All I want: on/off, input switch, volume control.

<comment><USER27> Sadly, no. Which is a big problem, since Smart TVs are the most user-hostile thing _ever_.

Auto-play, ads, pre-installed stuff, non-reprogrammable app-shortcut buttons on the remote, user-tracking. And there is no control, no settings, no opt- out.

I have to figure out if I can get an alternative firmware on my Samsungs TV. In theory, Tizen is Open Source.

It is so frustrating.

<comment><USER28> What about buying a commercial display panel?

[https://www.mwave.com.au/product/lg-se3kdb-49-full-hd-ips- le...](https://www.mwave.com.au/product/lg-se3kdb-49-full-hd-ips-led- commercial-display-ac15890)

Some of these things look like they have API and what not, so maybe they allow you to turn off all the things you don't want?

<comment><USER29> The thing is, those don't have DVB-T receiver, which some people out there still require to watch cable TV.

<comment><USER30> Are there external DVB-T receivers?

<comment><USER31> SiliconDust makes a network-attached DVB-T tuner[0] that works with MythTV & Plex, for DVR + live TV.

[0]: [https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun- connect/](https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun-connect/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Things like this are why I kind of despise the "smart TV" movement.

I can't blame people for using them, they're convenient as hell, but at some level I have trouble seeing why the _TV_ needs to have the _computer_ built into it. To me, a _TV_ should be a more-or-less "mechanical" device that does one thing and one thing only: display video.

Obviously, though, this only defers the error over to AppleTV or AndroidTV or whatever computer you have plugged in. I guess with the (admittedly awesome) advent of streaming-all-the-things, stuff like viruses are an inevitability.

<comment><USER24> In my experience, a SmartTV can stream and HAS ONE REMOTE. Every family member who is not an IT professional has struggled deeply with any TV/AV setup where two or three remotes are needed. This same customer is also not going to have an easy time on their own setting up some yet another third party universal remote.

<comment><USER33> It used to be that the youngest child had an honest job, acting on voice commands and adjusting the controls. It seems like people won't be happy until this experience is fully replicated with automation...

More seriously, I've found that a bluetooth keyboard with built-in pointer is my favorite remote. I treat the TV as a monitor and operate MythTV or Firefox to go to Netflix or Pandora from the couch.

I confess, I do have a second remote to control the audio. I could never tolerate the sound of built-in speakers in any TV. My media computer sends the video to the TV via one HDMI connection and digital audio to the hifi receiver via another HDMI port. So, I change volume as well as other downmix or night- mode options on the receiver, leaving the PC audio settings constant.

<comment><USER34> What resolution does Netflix stream at with Firefox?

<comment><USER33> I think I read that it is limited to 720p for Firefox on Linux (probably for DRM reasons). For the most part, it looks as good to me as typical 720p or 1080i ATSC over-air broadcasts. And, I'd say both look better than the typical digital cable or satellite TV I've seen elsewhere.

I have a 1080p TV, but the only time I've really cared is certain 1080i PBS shows, with natural landscape scenes deinterlaced via MythTV. Otherwise, 720p seems fine. It feels to me that every provider is optimizing their compression levels for an audience who is less picky than me. Usually, I am bothered more by inconsistent compression than absolute resolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Don't buy a smart TV, don't let your family/friends buy smart TVs. Buy a dumb screen and hook it up to an Apple TV, Chromecast etc. The 'smart' software is a privacy nightmare over which you have very little control. And sure, so is the Chromecast, but I at least have more faith that wherever that data's going it's going there securely and is relatively unlikely to be breached. Also, the software on your smart TV will age much faster than the screen itself.

<comment><USER36> Is it even possible to buy a dumb screen anymore?

<comment><USER37> "Commercial displays" are the answer. A TV without a tuner or any of the bullshit. Just HDMI.

<comment><USER38> Any recommendations for what vendor and what line to go with?

<comment><USER39> NEC E series for cheap, P series for the pro grade stuff.

In a past theme park life we setup our outdoor TVs for showing queue line content and they used NEC P430(? It's been years) both outside in a case and inside for digital menu boards in restaurants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My approach to a smart TV was just to buy a PlayStation. Anything I've wanted to do on my TV was available as an app in the PlayStation store, with the exception being Google Play Music. I had previously tried using a Google Chrome, but eventually got sick of its lack of local storage & native remote.

<comment><USER41> Unfortunately, the options for non-smart TVs keep getting narrower. Manufacturers want to inject app access into every device they can. You can't even buy a UHD disc player without an app platform coming with it.

<comment><USER42> My Sony has the ability to be connected to the internet, but have never been connected to the internet.

Do other manufacturers force a connection in some way?

<comment><USER25> Only my purist sensibilities prefer the idea of a TV that doesn't even have apps. But I know I can simply abstain from connecting the TV to the network. Seems like a non-issue.

An entry-level 32" Samsung is $200. I wouldn't be surprised if having "smart" capabilities subsidized the cost because Samsung gets kickbacks from, say, new Netflix subscriptions made from the TV itself, or some services pay for inclusion. In other words I don't even think you'd be avoiding any serious $premium by finding a dumb TV.

<comment><USER43> The costs are being subsidized by audience measurement tools such as those provided by folks like Inscape and Samba TV which quantify viewing habits by tracking what you watch.

[https://www.inscape.tv/](https://www.inscape.tv/) [https://samba.tv/](https://samba.tv/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How about open sourcing the code running on it or at least letting us run our own software?

A lot of apps that came with my TV from Samsung have been removed over the years as they stopped supporting them. For example Skype. So I paid for a TV with Skype, now it has no more Skype.

<comment><USER44> No, you paid for a TV with an App Store, where there were apps (pretty much all provided by third parties).

It's not Samsung's fault if a third party pulls their app.

<comment><USER45> It depends. If the TV was advertised with a specific application, which I see often, then the loss of that application is a loss of advertised functionality.

The way I see it, if they used the availability of an app as a direct selling point, that makes them somewhat liable to it's continued functionality. If they didn't secure that contractually or with some level of assurance, they should not have advertised it.

<comment><USER46> No, you received an implied license for the life of the television to operate it as a television. Samsung reserves the right to modify the software on said television as it so chooses.

<comment><USER47> I think without trying this opinion before a court, you have no idea.

Samsung may have reserved the right to modify the software, but I've literally seen smart tvs from Samsung that have a "Netflix" button on the physical remote.

They have shipped tv boxes that clearly and prominently display the Netflix app on the tv.

If the Netflix button on the remote no longer works, the tv is not doing what the user bought it to do and what it was advertised as being capable of.

<comment><USER48> I know you're just using Netflix as an example, but has anyone actually had that app pulled from their TV? I have an old 32 inch Vizio smart tv that I bought back in 2011 and all my big apps still work on it, albeit kind of slowly. Netflix, Prime, Vudu, all still available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Miniature sci-fi concept pitch:

A future where the world is largely a privacy-scarce melting pot of competition where individuals vie for leverage over each other based on the scraps of information they can gather, barter for, or source through a myriad of insecure networks which provide some base level of value to users (like, say, a third-party piece of software that runs on a television after the user grants it permission, accidentally or otherwise).

Meanwhile, VCs and technology experts have long seen this coming and retreated to countryside enclaves where electronics are banned, and news of the world is relayed via one-time-pad-over-horseback to ensure that the next level of marginal gain for the elite is collaborated upon in safety from reprisal.

That's the context at least; many possible plots from there. Basically Elysium except that the elite eschew technology because technology security is so flawed that it unintentionally sells them out every time.

<comment><USER50> Couldn't the elite just eliminate/enslave the rest of the population altogether and rely on automation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I simply do not want a "smart" TV. No internet access, no apps - just a lot of HDMI inputs, CEC, and a display. Sadly, this is getting harder and harder to find. When I went to buy last time, Costco didn't have any "dumb" TVs, so all I did was refuse to hook it up to the internet.

I got a Roku and a Chromecast. Those provide better "smart" functionality than any TV ever could.

<comment><USER52> So you don't want a smart TV but you're okay with Roku - whose CEO said on an interview that their entire business model is selling user data, half the home screen has an ad, and the hard coded buttons on the remote go to highest bidder?

Chromecast is sold by a business whose entire model is collecting user data and selling advertising.

Don't get me wrong, I love my TCL Roku TVs - I have three. But let's call a spade a spade. Also, my main one is setup to go directly to the HDMI port used by my AppleTV.

<comment><USER53> I'd trust them a lot more than my average TV manufacturer to keep their products up-to-date.

<comment><USER52> Because Google is never known to abandon products.....

But, whether the TV is smart or not, as long as it has HDMI ports, it really doesn't matter.

<comment><USER54> Assuming it wont start to give popups because it is 6 months since the last update so will you please connect the ethernet cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I own a Samsung TV. It works great. There were apps, I used to use them but slowly by slowly they bitrotted until the TV is simply an HDMI monitor at this point.

It still supports legacy broadcast TV over coax etc. but anything "modern" has rotted away. Which makes me think I simply don't want any smart at all in the TV.

<comment><USER56> This is both true and not true — yes, a great many apps have been abandoned, but the big ones (Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, HBO, premium sports apps, etc.) are well maintained. The built-in apps are by far the easiest way to watch 4K HDR video (which Amazon has lots of).

But yeah, all that said, the "smart TV" functionality would be better off in an external box. I trust that Netflix will update its app because I pay them every month. I don't trust Samsung will update the TV software for the 10-year life of the TV because I paid them all up front. Such is life in the modern world :)

<comment><USER57> > I trust that Netflix will update its app because I pay them every month

I pay each month for the WWE Network, yet last week the app stopped working, with a "no longer supported" message, on my 2013 Samsung TV.

<comment><USER56> Oh, I totally agree that a lot of smaller services (including most of the cable / TV companies) stopped building apps. IMO it's only worth it for global services because smart TV apps are far more heavily used in Asia and Europe.

The client I worked for (a big US cable provider) killed all their smart TV apps when they realized they were spending ~$500k a year on a bunch of apps that were being used by _maybe_ 3,000 people a month. They do continue to support apps for external devices like Roku and Fire TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Not news to this crowd... but I think it is pretty significant that a major consumer electronics manufacturer would come out and say this to the mainstream public.

What can a hacked tv do besides relay viewing information or connect to Hoolinet? Clearly it could be added to a botnet, but would Samsung be liable for that? Do the TVs have microphones or cameras... that would open Samsung up for a lawsuit.

What is to gain from this announcement?

<comment><USER25> > Clearly it could be added to a botnet

This is why I believe in metered data plans. Certainly not ridiculously expensive ones, but not "unlimited" access either.

If your IoT devices become open relay DDoS machines, it should show up on your bill. I'm convinced it's the only solution that aligns incentives correctly.

<comment><USER59> So, people shouldn't have ''unlimited'' access to the Internet, because they've had IoT garbage forced upon them and its their ''responsibility'' to manage it, when they usually can't actually control it anyway?

Not only that, but a DDoS is usually only an issue for a large central location that is perhaps part of this manner of problem, anyway.

They can go to Hell.

<comment><USER60> Nobody has had IoT garbage forced upon them. They bought it and connected it to the network, therefore it's their responsibility to manage it. Ignorance of basic network security is no more a defense against allowing malicious code on your network than ignorance of the law is a defense in court.

<comment><USER61> Some people have though, there are flats and houses rented and sold that come with all these things. Either by having smart blinds, lights and fridges already coming pre installed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I guess it would be too difficult for Samsung to have the TV run it's own checks? They could be run while the TV was off to avoid impacting the user experience.

But honestly if it's anything like PC antivirus software those scans are useless. If you don't intercept the virus before or while it is installing it's too late. Once it's in there it can hide from regular AV software all day long.

</comment><comment><USER63> Having a manual virus scan button on a TV is ridiculous. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if it doesn't do anything useful at all and is purely a placebo. If a signature-based virus scan tailored to TVs is available, it should just run in the background, requiring manual interaction is entirely insane.

Securing the TVs well in the first place would be the best option, but that is unlikely to happen.

</comment><comment><USER64> "A better solution would be for Samsung to automatically update its operating system for you."

An even better solution is to stop making unnecessary appliances "smart" and not handing bad actors a surface area to attack when companies aren't willing to invest in security

But of course this runs contrary to the bread-and-circuses mode of operation that dominates tech "innovation" nowadays. Nobody is content making a really good TV anymore; now they've been infected by the same featureitis that corrupted software development decades ago

</comment><comment><USER61> I wish there was a company selling TVs without any "smart" software on it. 100% of the time I use my TV through the Apple TV and even the changing of input to switch to a console is done through HomeKit.

I guess it would be way more expensive if they can't subsidize the price without all the stock apps and ads they ship with it.

<comment><USER60> Isn't this basically a monitor (with built-in speakers)? A quick look at Newegg suggests you can get a 43" monitor for pretty a pretty reasonable price.

<comment><USER61> Yes but 43" is not really TV size material. They are made for different use cases.

<comment><USER60> What is TV size material to you? A friend of mine has a 60" TV and it's _huge_. I really can't imagine that most people have TVs that big. You can go even bigger with monitors, but the selection is thinner so it's hard to tell if it's really economical.

The whole point of my comment is that average size aside, they really don't seem to be different use cases at all for a lot of people.

<comment><USER61> My point is that most monitors are not made to be TVs and in the size of a TV also not competitive based on the price. I'm also not sure there's a lot of OLED monitors in that size but I haven't done much research on that as I'm not in the market right now.

By TV sized I'm taking about 50+, right now I'm using a LG OLED in 55" and I'm pretty happy with it. With HomeKit and Apple TV I never see the ads and the rest of the smart garbage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Is there a market out there for a modern dumb TV? A good panel, decent speakers and a load of I/O in a slick enclosure?

I think I'd buy this.

<comment><USER52> No because just like Windows PCs. They operate on small margins and make money by bundling software in the case of consumer Windows PCs or selling viewing data in the case of TVs.

<comment><USER65> I know there's not a mass market for it, but I think a lot of privacy conscious folks would pay extra _not_ to have apps on their TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Also apparently Samsung support has a twitterbot that replies something similar

> `Hello there! Thanks for reaching out! Could you please send us a DM with > the TV Model code and more details about this concern? ^Nick`

to every tweet it gets. [https://twitter.com/SamsungSupport/status/114041514667572838...](https://twitter.com/SamsungSupport/status/1140415146675728384)

<comment><USER67> Chase bank has one of these as well. Pretty awesome to get a canned response (then ignored all weekend) when you get locked out of your bank while in a different country.

[https://twitter.com/ChaseSupport/status/1139899780283469825](https://twitter.com/ChaseSupport/status/1139899780283469825)

> 'Hi there. We're here to lend our support. Please DM us with your full name, > zip code, and additional details regarding your concerns. ^EL'

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> You know that special feeling of vindication and moral superiority when you are proven correct years-later? There's got to be a German word for that.

<comment><USER25> aka the need to let others know that you were right about something no matter how little they care. If there was a word for that, I feel like we'd already be seeing it daily on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I'm sad that the next TV I buy will probably have to be a "smart" TV. I went out of my way to find a dumb one the last time around, and I had to settle for a lower end model because all the higher end ones have a "smart" component. All my apps are via an attached Apple TV.

Oh well. As long as it works without being connected to my network I guess it's fine.

</comment><comment><USER70> Given that we do everything via HDMI and use a Chromecast for anything fancy, what would people recommend if someone doesn't need these doodads? Computer monitor plus a soundbar or something? Or does anyone in the UK know of a non- smart TV that can do FreeView and nothing else, but has a decent spec panel?

<comment><USER71> Had a similar thought before recently buying a new TV. I had heard of Samsung ads, LG's slow interface so was looking for something else. I do use a PiHole in the house, but didn't want to rely on it.

Ended up finding the Philips 50PUS6753/12 50in 4k - the previous version got What Hi-Fi's TV of year award and does a much better job than a PC monitor. Under £400 on Amazon atm. In-built sound is, for me, enough to avoid the soundbar. Also the Ambilight is a nice touch, sort of extending the picture beyond the screen. Responds to screen, audio or custom colour.

Main thing though is there are no ads that I've noticed and it's a fast enough interface. Currently using the TV itself for catchup/freeview/youtube and the rpi as a media centre. You can just not plug the TV in too if you want it truly dumb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I recently bought a new TV. After reading all the messes with smart TVs I just didn't connect mine to my local network. It's just not connected to the network and I don't intend to connect it.

I do every "smart" activity through a Chomecast device or similar devices anyway.

Now that alone could in theory be a security risk as it could be out of date and vulnerable to someone else messing with it in that sense ... but I felt connecting it was the bigger risk / hassle.

I kinda wish there was just a switch to power off the "smart" options and just have it operate in monitor only mode. I feel the same about microphones and cameras on phones. Give me a physical power off switch and led indicator for those things.

<comment><USER73> Same here ... don't let your smart TV connect to the network, just use it as an hdmi endpoint for devices you can (hopefully) control better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I remember reading an obsecure paper hacking a smart TV through the radio antenna after which WiFi could be turned on.

It was a work of art and sounded almost fictional. In the end the attacker would turn on WiFi and control the TV for not just one, any TV in radius, or execute a payload to connect back to a CnC for tvs out of range. It would work even if the TV was in standby.

Patching this particular vuln would have been difficult, though the attacker would have to craft a payload specific to the make and model. It's a nice example where adding features increases attack surface, and protecting against such hacks even for the experienced is near impossible.

Would make for a good HN submission.

<comment><USER75> Man, If you have any clues about where this could be found or any other info I'd really appreciate it. I'd love to read this.

<comment><USER74> Found. Did get some coverage in the end. PoC: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJ_8QHX6OA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJ_8QHX6OA)

DVB standards updated their specification after the disclosure too. [1] DVB announcement: [https://www.dvb.org/resources/public/pressreleases/dvb_pr263...](https://www.dvb.org/resources/public/pressreleases/dvb_pr263_steering_board_approves_updates_to_prevent_man_in_the_middle_attacks_final.pdf)

Someone found another vulnerability using the same vector - will post if I can find it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Also insane is that there is no "disconnect and forget" option for the WiFi on these TVs. The only method I've found that works is to trick the TV into joining a different network and then turning off that other network.

<comment><USER77> I have discovered the same thing, had to factory reset the one TV I connected before I realized this. Now I have a "dummy" SSID I start up anytime I do want IoT devices to connect to the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Slightly unrelated, but maybe we should start calling TVs with cameras "telescreens"? Like, "don't forget to check your telescreen for viruses every several days".

</comment><comment><USER46> Our Samsung TV isn't allowed to speak to the internet. Hopefully, by the time we are in the market for another TV, there will have been a swing in the market away from Smart TVs.

<comment><USER79> If we could somehow standardise on the panel cable, like the one used in LG OLED Thin and Samsung. Then the panel maker concentrate on making better panel. While we get a choice and more competition of "Smart".

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I bought a samsung SmatTV in 2017 in Costco. The tv is ridden with software bug: it would turn off itself randomly or cannot turn on the tv unless I remove the remote batteries and reinstall them. The ui is really slow. I also owned a series of samsung Android phones since the S2 to S5, a samsung security camera. They are all ridden with a lot of bugs. I have vowed not to buy a single samsung product anymore.

<comment><USER81> I got my TV at costco and it came with a 2 year warranty. Take it back if it's broken!

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Last year my teenage daughter decided to trip over the cord of a perfectly good TCL television, ruining it, so we ended up buying a Samsung TV. It has a slightly bigger screen and sturdier legs that wouldn't trip over so easily, but man, it's an exercise in software disaster.

Simply starting Youtube is an exercise in frustration with six or seven arrow keys, and it comes with a dozen built-in advertisement channels that will start auto-playing when powered on. After I finally got fed up, I looked up how to disable them, and turns out I have to click each channel individually to disable them. Also, I don't know if it's the fault of Samsung, Youtube app, or my phone (made by Samsung, haha), but trying to cast a Youtube video from my phone is a total shitfest - sometimes it takes a minute and the streaming still doesn't start. (Come on, you guys are sitting next to each other!)

It's sad to see such a great brand being ruined for shitty software, but I've had enough. My next TV won't be Samsung. Maybe it will have a slightly smaller viewing angle, but who cares.

<comment><USER83> That's frustrating. My LG smart TV is one click away from Netflix and Amazon, and I've got mapped buttons to YouTube and google play - it's a half second away, and there are no built in advertising channels. The worst we have is occasionally we need to exit out of whatever Netflix or Amazon stream we're on and go back in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> What is the attack surface for a Smart TV? Any exploits? This is scary and disappointing. I disable my TVs wifi and only use Apple TVs.

<comment><USER85> My TV (Finlux) has an undocumented API, that allows anyone to pull information about what I'm watching at the moment. That same API can be used to launch a telnet daemon which can then be used to log in as root without using a password. Needless to say I've disabled wifi on it and I don't intend to ever connect it again.

But hey, the TV runs Linux, which is nice I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> The biggest issue is lack of software/security updates. They treat those products as dumb TVs. they've compiled an OS build ("firmware") and you'd might get a year of updates and that's it.

Any Smart TV will eventually become a security hazard. meaning "dumb" TV with an AppleTV or a reasonable modern streaming device is safer :)

</comment><comment><USER87> This comes from the same company that pushed advertisements through their notification system and when called out they denied it like crazy until some news articles came out. Also the same company that was injecting ads into plex.

Basically, don't connect your Samsung (or any tv) to the internet.

</comment><comment><USER88> I think this makes the case for not owning ANY smart TV.

Are there ANY manufacturers that have a strong track record of out-of-the-box configs that aren't total swiss cheese, combined with years of prompt updates to address issues discovered later, going out to the lifespan of a typical dumb TV?

</comment><comment><USER89> And yet Samsung stopped providing updates for my 2014 SmartTV 1 year in, so that's 4 years of NO JAVA UPDATES! Yes, it is permanently disconnected.

I've complained to support and they don't seem to care much, and that I'll just buy a new TV every 2 years...

</comment><comment><USER90> This is what drove me off Windows (in the 1990s* ): having to spend too large a proportion of time _managing_ my computer rather than using it (AV, disk optimizers etc). Although I love writing code and designing hardware I didn't like the "computer" experience.

Nowadays nobody sysadmins their phone and barely their tablet. And TV users want to do even less maintenance. In the quest to "add value" these TV guys have lost the plot.

* I assume things have improved dramatically since then. No slur against Windows implied by my comment, it's merely how things were.

</comment><comment><USER91> Somewhat tangential and not workable in all situations, but the best "TV" I've found is a projector bolted to the ceiling. It's out of the way. There's no "black mirror" taking up space or pulling on your gaze. Project against a white wall and it's like having a magic wall that turns into a cinema on demand. The fact that it doesn't work well in daylight is a forcing function to keep from watching TV / movies during the day. I have an Apple TV plugged into it, wedged into the ceiling mount, bluetooth audio to the stereo, no wires anywhere. I love it.

</comment><comment><USER92> Samsung TVs should not be online: it's proven you can't trust them. It phones home and reports your usage - even every time you press the volume button.

Login to Smartthings and you can see some of the data it collects.

</comment><comment><USER93> I have a Samsung TV but I've never thought of scanning it for viruses. So, thank you for this piece of news. Looks like we should take care of ourselves; at least, thanks to Samsung for warning.

<comment><USER94> I don't understood with how cheap chromecast/Apple TV/whatever streaming machines are these days why people don't use one of those and just not hook the TVs to the network? Is there something specific on the tv that's not available on these other platforms?

<comment><USER95> It's one less remote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I worked for a large network company at one time as a contractor. I was pretty horrified at _some_ parts of their security. That being said they had a great attitude towards security I haven't encountered since, so maybe they've improved. But still very little stopping even a small determined country like say Monaco from hiring 2-3 decent sysadmins and hacking them to pieces.

Anyway it would surprise me if the TV companies even had bare minimum acceptable security, because even the net security guys are struggling.

</comment><comment><USER97> My TV is a 42" 1080p LG TV I've had for almost ten years now and I fear the day it gives up the ghost. I don't really care about 4K or the thinner bezels (although having a physically lighter, as in less heavy, TV would be nice). But the last thing I want is a "smart" TV. I just want a dumb box that pushes the pixels I give it. Are there any of those left out there? Will I have to sacrifice quality otherwise just so my TV doesn't spy on me or get viruses?

<comment><USER98> Different TV, same situation. I just figure I won't ever plug it in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Why would you have a scan-based security approach? Why not just enforce code- signing of all executables like on iOS? It shouldn't be too hard for a closed, embedded platform.

<comment><USER53> That sounds like extra work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Many of the comments here say that you can just not give your TV access to your network and you'll be OK. This may not actually be true thanks to Ethernet over HDMI(1), which could let your Roku/Fire Stick/Apple TV give your TV internet access over the HDMI cable.

(1) [https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx](https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx)

<comment><USER101> As far as I know, no Roku device has ever implemented Ethernet over HDMI. It's too poorly supported by devices to spend money on implementing, and WiFi just works better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Recently I did some research to choose a new TV. I plan to use it as a regular one, with HDMI input and don't need any smart stuff. Unfortunately, most models are smart and there is no information about their behavior when disconnected. It may still show popups to make an account or connect to the network. Choosing a smart TV feels like choosing a blind box with crap. Perhaps I'd spend more and buy a commercial monitor instead.

</comment><comment><USER79> I am willing to pay additional 30% mark up on top of the current price of Samsung SmartTV for an Apple TV Set.

Benedict Evans has been saying TV market has slim margin, and long replacement cycle. I doubt the HomePod addressable market is any bigger than TV, and likely has similar long circle. Why not TV? Clearly there is something the Apple could bring value to the TV market. ( Although he has been right every time I disagree with him )

<comment><USER103> Apple now has 8k displays with $5000 price tags. A 4k TV, would cannibalize that pretty heavily, even if it was priced at 2-3x the competition.

<comment><USER79> You mean 6K?

The thing is, that monitor is actually compared to Reference Monitor, and as far as the initial preview from those who have seen it, most can't believe a LCD could be as good if not even better than the OLED. And if the spec is actually as good as they say ( Apple has always been very conservative in Spec listing ) may be they are really targeting Reference Monitor?

If so, then a normal monitor / tv would not cannibalise it, since they are completely different segment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> It's funny to me how clear the divide is in terms of valuing this technology vs being scared of it for people working in tech vs not

</comment><comment><USER52> On a related note:

"The CIA Spied on People Through Their Smart TVs, Leaked Documents Reveal"

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbq5x/the-cia-spied- on-p...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbq5x/the-cia-spied-on-people- through-their-smart-tvs-leaked-documents-reveal)

</comment><comment> amiga-workbench This is absolutely comical, I'm grabbing a second hand NEC commercial panel when my current TV kicks the bucket.

</comment><comment><USER105> Years ago I switched to a dumb short throw projector. Now I get a huge clear picture connected to an Apple TV and a decent set of speakers. I do not regret my decision. No crappy smart software. Just on and off.

</comment><comment><USER106> There are nearly 20,000 Samsung Smart TVs directly hooked up to the Internet:

[https://www.shodan.io/report/3AhBQ8hu](https://www.shodan.io/report/3AhBQ8hu)

</comment><comment><USER107> I feel glad I own a "stupid" TCL TV. If I feel the need to have "smart" features, a Raspberry PI running Kodi/OSMC connected by HDMI is more than enough.

<comment><USER103> These types of TVs are rapidly becoming unavailable. It's not just 4K TVs, anything above 24" is going the SmartTV route.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> Wanna guess which brand of tv I won't be buying when I upgrade to 4k? Is it still possible to buy "dumb" TVs with the latest display tech?

</comment><comment><USER109> Wow! Who designed that UI to get to the virus scanner?!

</comment><comment><USER110> Precisely the reason that I just disable the network connection on mine and use my Xbox for media. The convenience isn't worth the hassle.

</comment><comment><USER111> Surprised they don't come pre-loaded with McAfee

<comment><USER112> They do though, [https://www.howtogeek.com/406177/samsung-is-bloating- everyth...](https://www.howtogeek.com/406177/samsung-is-bloating-everything- with-mcafee%E2%80%94even-smart-tvs/)

<comment><USER111> That made my day. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Honest question - this is a technical audience, why on earth are any of you guys ever letting your TV connect to the internet?

</comment><comment><USER114> Dumb question: why doesn't the TV just run antivirus without user intervention?

</comment><comment><USER115> I never give my TV Wi-Fi credentials, only the Roku and Prime stick.

<comment><USER100> Unless your Roku or Prime Stick passthrough the internet access to your TV.

[https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx](https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx)

<comment><USER101> Again, no Roku device has ever implemented Ethernet over HDMI. It's too poorly supported in TV hardware to be worth doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> The obvious solution is to write an ad-blocker for your TV.

<comment><USER75> Don't have a smart tv, but I assume something like PieHole would do the job

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> How do I check my Samsung TV with my Samsung remote?

</comment><comment><USER118> Earlier discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20201485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20201485)

<comment><USER119> Thanks! Comments moved thither.

Edit: actually, the BBC article seems to contain more information, so let's keep this submission instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> Or else what? Not exactly the end of the world if my TV is pwned as long as I can still, you know, use it.

The ability to move laterally in my home network is about as valuable to anyone sophisticated enough to use it as walking around my apartment complex would be to a real life Danny Ocean. Could Danny get into my house and take my PII? Sure, but like, why the fuck would he?

It's not wonderful to potentially be contributing to some botnet, but that's on Samsung not me.

<comment><USER53> I would rather my device not contribute to a DDoS, especially as there may be legal implications to allowing this, but you do you I guess…

<comment><USER121> You do you? I would lose that ridiculous phrase. It's super condescending and not needed. No one needs your permission to be themself, or even a 'reminder'.</comment></comment></comment>


What is your story of finding your cofounder, tech or non-tech? - <AUTHOR> We are developing a social app and encountering a bunch of problems finding an ideal tech cofounder. What is your story finding yours (where or how)? <comment><USER2> What's your pitch? how do you know it's going to work? Do you have some kind of sign up page with a number of users that buy your premise?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not pitching here, just curious about how and where others have found their cofounders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Funny I'm having issues finding someone with sales experience that wants to co-found/market a marketplace type app/website.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I were you I would contact people enrolled in current MBA courses. Is it just an idea or you got deeper into it?

<comment><USER2> www.bid2mow.com - just add hustle...lol..I work full-time so don't have the time to chase the money.</comment></comment></comment>


The Global Race to Build the World's Biggest Battery - <AUTHOR> https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-global-race-to-build-the-worlds-biggest-battery <comment><USER2> It always puzzles me why anyone would spend so much money and effort on building such large batteries when they are doomed to need replacing every.. say 10 years..

When technolgy like cetrifugal systems can last 100 years only needing bearing maintenance every 25 years</comment>


Chicago Tunnel Company Railroad Home Page - <AUTHOR> http://users.ameritech.net/chicagotunnel/tunnel1.html

<comment><AUTHOR> For the record, the original title was:

"The tunnels that did not revolutionize delivery in Chicago."

The point was to tell a lesson for current startups: it is about tunnels, the tunnels were supposed to revolutionize delivery, and they did not do so. It's a story about a bold vision to change the world--very relevant to a lot of startups that think they will change the world but might end up being abandoned in a few years.

<comment><USER2> Delivery tunnels were useful in other cities, like in London:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway>

<comment><USER2> Love the fact that I got de-karma'd for this for some reason.

It's totally true, the London Post Office Railway was modeled after Chicago and it was useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Most of the CTC's business was in hauling coal in and hauling ash back out of the Loop, back when all the buildings were heated using coal.

Marshall Fields contracted them for deliveries for a while, and they experimented with some other things, but that was the core of their business.

They were also devastated by the building of the subway tunnels through the loop, which cut many of the CTC tunnels.

So while they're a cool aspect of Chicago's history, it's not hard to see why they failed. They were an artifact of the coal heating era -- and not a very robust one at that.

As an aside, a tunnel project also was a plot device in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It's a long time since I read it, but if I recall correctly, the tunnels were being built to break a trolley worker's strike.

</comment><comment><USER4> They did provide a convenient way for the Chicago River to flood the basements of many buildings downtown, though.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood>

<comment><USER5> Totally the city's fault, from the page:

Early in 1992, a contractor working for the city, near the Kinzie Street bridge, drove a wooden pile next to the wall of a drift under the river. The pressure from the pile began to cause a leak in the wall. The leak was small at first. A cable television employee spotted the leak and even captured it on video tape. The cable televison company then brought the problem to the attention of the city. Unfortunately, the city allowed the leak to continue for several months without repair. Eventually, the drift wall gave way, and the river poured into the tunnels. The water completely flooded the system, including many basements that were still connected to it. The Loop was shut down for days, and the flood caused millions of dollars in damage. The torrent of flood water, silt, and debris probably destroyed most of the remaining Chicago Tunnel Company freight cars and artifacts. If the city acted quickly and if the water tight doors had been left in place and maintained, the flood may have been prevented.

<comment><USER6> Yes, it was totally the city's fault that the Chicago Tunnel Company built and abandoned a collection of illegally dug tunnels under the city.

It is also totally the city's fault that the previous participants in the Chicago Tunnel Company's experiment didn't protect themselves against a flood in that infrastructure.

It is totally the city's fault that despite the tunnels not being a public responsibility, they had started a bidding process to get the leak fixed, though it wasn't completed before the flood.

Yeah... totally the city's fault.

Reader's note: There are elements of sarcasm in my post.

<comment><USER7> It was totally the city's fault because the city _owned_ the tunnels. See the FAQ: <http://users.ameritech.net/pokeefe571/ctcfaq.htm>

Q: Why were the tunnels under State Street and Dearborn Street demolished to make room for the rapid transit subways? Didn't the Tunnel Company have any say so in the matter?

A: The Chicago Tunnel Company owned only the locomotives, rolling stock, track, and overhead wire. The City of Chicago owned the tunnels. Because of this, the Tunnel Company didn't have much choice but to give up their most profitable trackage when subway construction was started by the city. You can't fight City Hall!

<comment><USER6> Well that weakens my point substantially, but I still think that 'totally' is too much blame.

If you leave your building hooked up to an open tunnel line, something could come in through it. And that something could be water (or gas, or rodents...).

Claiming that's "totally" the city's fault strikes me as a dangerous abdication of personal responsibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you like this, you'll love Hidden Chicago 2. They have a nice segment about it, and lots more. I'm not sure what you can find online, but a quick Google turned up:

<http://video.wttw.com/feature/102/>

and

<http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=1,60>

</comment><comment><USER9> I expected the link to be to a different tunnel which failed to revolutionise delivery:

[http://www.idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda- weehawken_burri...](http://www.idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda- weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm)</comment>


The Greatest Job In Advertising - <AUTHOR> http://work4rich.com/

<comment><USER2> Cool. It doesn't look like it actually sends the results. Also you exceeded your mail quota so its not sending any emails.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow! Thanks for the catch, we hit the gmail daily quota :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "That mobile device don't work 4 Rich. Use a real machine."

<comment><AUTHOR> no mobile, part of the joke.

<comment><USER3> I do not get it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for sharing!

The only thing I can think of maybe is that after submission, the results could be shown to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great feedback. We made the site on an incredibly short timeline so we glossed over a number of things trying to create an MVP, minimum viable punchline :)

with one more day we could have had it work on mobile as well :( we were able to respond to people's tweets with subdomain sites though :) rishi.work4rich.com

thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER4> Understandable. Still, great concept! This is definitely the future of hiring and a great way to attract talent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Collosal d-baggery! You need a reality TV show streamed on Netflix! You're 31337!

</comment><comment><USER6> Am I missing something? Who is Rich and why do I want to work for him?

<comment><USER7> The person behind "Got milk?", apparently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Silverstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Silverstein)</comment></comment>


SpaceX is moving its Mars spaceship and booster work to Texas - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-port-of-la-20190116-story.html <comment><USER2> It wouldn't surprise me if they move all production there. It's an easier and cheaper place to build things if for no other reason than land and labor costs and it's much closer to all but retrograde launch sites.

They'll probably keep management and high level R&D in LA.</comment>


The hype about super-fast broadband subsidies - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13024563 <comment><USER2> _One study suggests that increasing broadband penetration in a typical American state by a percentage point raises employment by 0.2-0.3% a year. The idea that governments should be pouring money into broadband seems so self- evident that operators and equipment-makers have been rubbing their hands with glee._

Why not simply give individuals money, and let them set their own priorities? Then, if they _wanted_ broadband, they could buy broadband. If they instead felt that _other_ tools or needs were more pressing, they could buy those instead.</comment>