I have a Samsung fridge. It’s not a smart fridge, it doesn’t have a screen, bluetooth, or any way to connect to it.
I logged into my UniFi stack to monitor devices and it showed up. It had gotten the connection details from my wife’s phone, the other Samsung device and was transmitting data back to Google and Samsung.
What model of fridge?! How did you know the random device on your network was your non-smart fridge? This is a wild story. I want to believe but if it's true I think there's no sane solution other than exploratory surgery on every appliance you buy.
I don’t recall the model. I had bought a new Samsung Monitor, my wife left the fridge door open and it had started alerting on my monitor while I was in game.
So I went digging in UniFi, found it, and blocked it. Same with my HP Printer that sent almost a gig of data to Google Print Services daily.
Wait, so both you fridge and your monitor self-connected to wifi? Or you installed monitor software that served as some kind of iot gateway? Every time you tell this story it gets weirder.
> gotten the connection details from my wife’s phone
> went digging in UniFi, found it, and blocked it
> still connected to my WiFi
Is your wife's phone also Samsung? Do Samsung phones have a habit of sharing WiFi passwords amongst themselves, or other devices with a Samsung Account? Do Samsung Accounts still exist? Is your fridge blocked, or is it still connected? If you change your WiFi SSID or password, does the fridge acquire it anew, the same way?
The far more likely explanation is that your unifi dashboard's device identification logic is broken and is misreporting the device. Otherwise it doesn't make sense for samsung to engage it a massive conspiracy of putting wifi hardware in non-smart devices (driving up the BOM cost), creating a massive botnet that can share credentials between devices, all so they can... maybe run a residential proxy network? Then subsequently detected by anyone who looks at their device list.
Even if you think they're running some sort of massive botnet, the fridge being part of it is still implausible. They probably have billions of phones and tablets alone, plenty enough to scrape/DDoS the entire internet several times over. There's no need to add clandestine hardware into non-smart fridges.
It’s really not that far fetched. What led me to investigate was that I got a Samsung 49” smart monitor, my wife left the kitchen door open and it displayed alerts on my monitor.
UniFi is not misrepresenting the device ID; while you’re right that happens. It didn’t here.
The Mac ID is 1c:e8:9e:3d:c4:ad and is registered to SJIT who makes IOT Devices Samsung and smart fridges.
I appreciate your skepticism, but the device is still connected to my WiFi. It has been since 2024, the Mac ID has not changed nor has its identification. I’ve also done packet tracing to determine it IS in fact the smart fridge.
As for the “clandestine hardware to non-smart fridges”. Streamlining of production lines is nothing new. Being able to datamine people’s networks is worth the 20$ hardware chip.
> The far more likely explanation is that your unifi dashboard's device identification logic is broken and is misreporting the device.
that does happen, but if this fridge really is connected, it is far more likely that one samsung device used Bluetooth LE to communicate its wi-fi credentials to another samsung device when they were in extremely close proximity.
This is how a new apple device can get logged into the same apple account as another device, you bring them close to each other and they communicate over BLE everything that is needed to bring the new device online and into your device ecosystem.
samsung probably isn't running a botnet, that's not why the fridge is connected; your guess is as good as mine as to what it is, but i would be surprised if it were a botnet.
Interesting. I wonder how those who were laid off by the Government feel about this. Or those who are harmed by ICE Agents. Maybe those who are stuck in limbo because their visas aren’t going to be renewed.
You’re point about /effective/ governance makes sense. To that I agree, often the EOs are overturned or have little affect.
However, the damage EOs cause is very real, lasting, and can be disastrous. For example Trumps tariffs, while ineffective at their (stated) goal, were eventually overturned. But the damage they caused will be very long lasting. Supply chains are organic, they respond to outside forces, when those forces cause them to shift and change. Rarely do they on their own shift back.
Insurance companies often have a parent company. That parent company owns healthcare providers and pharmacies.
So it goes something like this
United Health Group -> United Health Insurance
United Health Group -> Sunshine Hospital.
United Health Insurance has a profit cap, it’s a % of revenue. Sunshine Hospital has no cap. So Sunshine Hospital charged United Health Insurance X$ and that profit rolls up to United Health Group.
>United Health Insurance has a profit cap, it’s a % of revenue. Sunshine Hospital has no cap. So Sunshine Hospital charged United Health Insurance X$ and that profit rolls up to United Health Group.
That doesn't really work as a strategy unless UHI cornered the insurance market within a given region, otherwise they'd lose business to competing hospitals. You might then say "hospitals aren't competitive, they're (regional) monopolies!", which might be true, but if that were the case, you'd expect them to raise prices anyways. They're profit maximizing companies after all, not operating out of altruism.
Uhh...? We know for a fact that this is how it works.
It's actually far more insidious.
The payer will have non-owned providers on their network, and by virtue of processing those claims they will understand a lot about the provider. They use this info to decide which providers to acquire. If the provider declines acquisition, the payer will use their member population (i.e. customers/patients of the provider who are covered by the payer) as leverage in negotiations against the provider, effectively crippling their business.
Once a practice is sufficiently maimed, they come back with another acquisition offer, and ta-da, the big player gets bigger.
Yes, all of this only works if the payer is large relative to other payers. There was a period of history where this was a caveat, now it's just an observation about history. Now, there is 1 or 2 mega-players in each region. They've divvied up the country into their own territories and will extract rent henceforth.
It's very important to understand that this model also eliminates all incentives to reduce costs of care. There is not a single player in the entire ecosystem who is incentivized to reduce cost of care except patients, but even there, most patients' health insurer is selected by their employer. Then what is an employer going to do? Select a health plan that doesn't have any local healthcare providers?
>Yes, all of this only works if the payer is large relative to other payers. There was a period of history where this was a caveat, now it's just an observation about history. Now, there is 1 or 2 mega-players in each region. They've divvied up the country into their own territories and will extract rent henceforth.
...which is specifically what I acknowledge in my original comment:
>... unless UHI cornered the insurance market within a given region, otherwise they'd lose business to competing hospitals.
For all the words you wrote, it doesn't seem like you're disputing this point, and you're not providing any evidence that UHI has monopoly/monopsony powers, only postulating that it's probably true.
So your very substantive contribution to "they're abusing market power" is the observation "they could only do this if they have market power?"
And you're wanting someone else to go demonstrate to you that the single entity that is both 1) largest health insurer and 2) largest health provider in the country has significant market power?
I'll assume that this is legitimate ignorance and not a bad faith attempt to muddy conversation, and I'll direct you to a few resources where you can read several years of extensive investigative reporting on the myriad ways the pay-vider structure enables acquisition and exploitation of market power:
>I'll assume that this is legitimate ignorance and not a bad faith attempt to muddy conversation, and I'll direct you to a few resources where you can read several years of extensive investigative reporting on the myriad ways the pay-vider structure enables acquisition and exploitation of market power:
I read through the first 3 and can't tell how they're related, so I'm not going to check the rest.
These only claims that united health is the "biggest", but that's not the same as having monopoly in a given market, which is needed for the scheme to work. Otherwise if you only have say, 30% market share, and your associated hospital charges sky high rates, you might be able to get slightly fatter margins on your insurance side, but you'll be losing money to other competitors that can out-compete you through greater economies of scale. I did a cursory search and their national market share in insurance is around 15%, which really seems tough to have the economics work out, especially given how capital intensive hospitals are.
What does "Medicare Fraud" have to do with the question that they're a monopoly or not?
This and the other links feels like trying to smuggle in a specific claim about what united health might be doing (ie. they're charging irrationally high prices just so they can pump their insurance margins), by pointing to a bunch of other shady stuff that they do.
You read through the first 3 links, including what... all 8 parts of the deep investigative work done by the leading healthcare publication with the subtitle "How UnitedHealth Group wields its unrivaled physician empire to boost its profits and expand its influence", and you came away thinking that this was unrelated to the topic at hand?
You read through all those 8 parts and didn't see how, for example, Part 5, titled "UnitedHealth pays its own physician groups considerably more than others, driving up consumer costs and its profits" is related to the question of whether or not they have and exploit market concentration to increase their profits?
And yes I can see how the Medicare fraud could seem unrelated to someone who demonstrably lacks curiosity while feigning it. But it's actually just a special variant of the exact same strategy someone else described at the top of this thread.
UHG takes on Medicare Advantage patients. Medicare pays UHG depending on the delta between the amount of care those patients are expected to receive versus the amount they actually receive.
The payer is incentivized to make their patients look sicker and to deliver less care to them. Traditionally, the provider has no such incentive and the payer has few levers to encourage them to do either behavior, but in this vertically concentrated model, they are the same entity and now the payer has tons of levers to get specific coding and care practices out of their owned providers.
Exact same dynamic as described in the very first comment, but under a VBC rather than fee-for-service model, and Medicare pays the bill.
> I did a cursory search and their national market share in insurance is around 15%, which really seems tough to have the economics work out
Maybe cursory searches of national market share is not the best way to understand market dynamics in something as complex as the US healthcare system. This is not an industry in which "national market share" is the same as actual market power. Healthcare is intrinsically hyperlocal – obviously. There are thousands of distinct healthcare markets, and UHG and its ilk are systematically capturing them one by one. We are trending toward a situation where 5 payviders each own 20% of the national market, but 100% of actual markets are owned by one player.
You would be naive to look at the 20% figure and say "no monopoly here! No need for me to look further into this despite clear evidence of successful execution of strategies that, by my own admission, could only possibly work with excessive market power!"
> That doesn't really work as a strategy unless UHI cornered the insurance market within a given region, otherwise they'd lose business to competing hospitals.
Welcome to the Certificate of Need. A legal requirement in most states for creating a new healthcare facility. Ostensibly to make sure that the population in that area has adequate healthcare options. But lobbied for by healthcare facility and hospital owners, it actually surveys other providers (your competitors) in the area and asks if their revenue would be adversely affected by you opening up. Too much of this (i.e. "we're worried that a hospital might reduce coverage or shutdown if there's too much risk to their profit"), and no CoN for you.
And this is to say nothing of Pharma Benefits Management. Steering you towards their own more expensive pharmacy (which isn't profit-capped). Mine does it by saying "you want a more convenient >30 day prescription? Only through our wholly owned mail-order subsidiary". 30 day scripts at your local pharmacy. 90 day for the same med? Denied.
>which might be true, but if that were the case, you'd expect them to raise prices anyways. They're profit maximizing companies after all, not operating out of altruism.
You have valid points. But context matters. Today with a 1100$ 32GB AMD GPU someone can run Qwen 3.6 as a model without problem. On the same machine they’re using, or a small server. Almost zero increase to the destruction of the environment. If their house has solar.. even better!
But the slopfest and verbose code is where you’re missing the bigger picture. Model written code can be understood by other models. That means future models could improve that code even more in the future.
But the biggest thing you’re missing? If that code compiles, works, and is secure? The value to people between now and a new model making it better is something gained, not lost.
Progress doesn’t happen over night. But just because it doesn’t, doesn’t mean we stop the presses and write all the books manually because we don’t have the internet yet. It means we work with what we have, derive value from it, to use that value to invest into the future.
Drops in crime are not related to Flock and Policing. The crime statistics have been dropping for a long time. Since its peak in the early 1990s. This has been occurring since before smartphones, before flock, hell before DVDs became mainstream.
Crime is cultural. The US’s culture has changed significantly since the 1990s and continues to do so.
Flock and Police are not crime prevention; they are crime reaction. The police in the US do not exist to “stop crime” despite the public marketing they do so. That’s literally marketing and salesmanship on their part. Police have no legal requirement to protect individuals nor their property. A police officer could watch someone be murdered infront of them, do nothing, and they would suffer no legal consequences. Infact they might get fired, then sue for back pay and early retirement. It’s happened. Multiple times.
Going back to crime - Again, it’s cultural. The US has adopted a culture since the 1990s that “crime doesn’t pay” and that crime isn’t ok. The US has also changed its stance on drugs and addictive substances offering treatment instead of punishment in many cases. Weed is legal now, it wasn’t then.
Flock and Policing tactics have very little to do with the drop in crime.
Of course cops stop crime. Well maybe not cops but putting people that commit crime in prison, there is less crime. Look at El Salvador as an example. It's that easy
> Bukele’s government had previously negotiated with MS-13 and other violent gangs it publicly claimed to be cracking down on, El Faro found. Those negotiations, documents showed, involved offering privileges to gang leaders in prison, in exchange for a reduction in homicides and voter support in territories the gangs controlled.
> Over the past ten years, El Salvador’s crime rate has experienced a historic transformation, plummeting by roughly 98%. Homicides dropped from a devastating peak of 103 to 105 per 100,000 residents in 2015—when it was considered one of the world's murder capitals—to a historic low of approximately 1.3 per 100,000 residents.
> Why do we permit such fire prone housing to be built just to save a few dollars.
I know you didn’t mean it, but this question isn’t a question. It’s a statement formed as a question. It’s a judgement. It’s not a curiosity legitimately asking why.
There are so many good reasons why houses in the US are built the way they are. Some of which are…
1. Concrete/Brick houses retain heat and are often harder to cool. They also don’t insulate well. US Houses have been built as a means of controlling moisture, humidity, and cooling efficiently.
2. Stick built houses cost less to repair. Brick/Concrete houses require much more demolition to repair, rebuild, or change. While replacing a load bearing wall in a stick house can be done easily, concrete and brick require the entire wall to be torn down.
3. Humidity, Moisture, and Wind matter. When moisture gets into concrete and brick then freezes it can cause huge structural cracks. Whereas in stick houses, it’s not as big a deal. I had a house with a raised driveway and a walkout basement. The basement and driveway had to be completely demolished due to moisture cracks. If the entire house was concrete it would have been a write off.
4. Soil composition matters. In some areas the soil is not capable of holding the weight of all the concrete and brick. Causing structure issues later and endangering folks.
Modern building codes today in most places are pretty solid. They require 2x6 framing, they require testing of the airways in the house to ensure proper air leaking/sealing. They require the structure of the house be built with specific bolts. They require the framing to be done in a way that resists wind sheer and twisting.
The US Building codes have been revised consistently over time. This started with the nuclear bomb testing in the 40s and onward. They built houses, and then bombed them to find out how to make them better. We’ve learned from Tornados, Hurricanes, and more. These all have resulted in major improvements to building houses.
Today in the US we have no shortage of housing methods. We have SIP Framing, ICF Concrete Framing, Recycled ICF, Modular designs, etc. Most still go with stick built because it’s the better option for the majority.
I lived in a 2x4 house in TN that was built poorly and improperly. I spent 200k in 4 years repairing that house. Now I live in a 2x6 built slab house. This house was built by a luxury builder properly.
The difference between the two is astonishing. The TN House couldn’t go less than 82 degrees when it was hot and humid. The luxury house is in Vegas, it can be 50 degrees inside when it’s 120 outside. You can cut costs on stick built, but you can also make some of the best houses with it.
Also, to add to this what we’ve learned about fires and houses is that.. it’s less about how the house is built.
Whether a house catches fire or not is almost always due to the landscaping, maintenance, and roof of the house.
Traditional house siding and roof will resist flames and fires. However, if an overgrown bush catches fire it will cause enough heat to the side of the house to break down that protection and set it aflame. Same with leaves in gutters, etc.
Since we're on a wild tangent here, the US house construction is also held back by the sheer momentum of wood-framed buildings.
For example, aerated autoclaved concrete has better structural strength, doesn't need additional insulation, completely non-combustible, and is cheaper to build. Yet approximately nobody in the US uses it.
> For example, aerated autoclaved concrete has better structural strength, doesn't need additional insulation, completely non-combustible, and is cheaper to build.
Apparently it ages out though and becomes unsafe when it does, resulting in a scandal in the UK:
"There is nothing fundamentally wrong with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as building material or system. Many buildings from the 60s and 70s built from many materials are now having problems due to inadequate maintenance, and old age."
I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. I've never heard of this problem with regular brick or concrete structures.
Not really. AAC was used to build floors without enough of additional reinforcement, and this is a bad idea. Just like regular concrete, it's weak in tension and is even more brittle.
If you use it to build walls and then use regular concrete or wood to build floors, it has none of these issues.
It's an amazing material, very light and it can be cut with a special handsaw on site.
No, it really was a question. Please don't inject your own biases and assumptions when interpreting my words.
It seems that you've invented a false dichotomy where the only options are wood frame or brick and concrete and then assumed me to be advocating for the latter. I was not. There are a variety of ways in which wood frame structures can be made less prone to external sources of fire. At least a few jurisdictions in california have adopted some of these methods into code as of late.
My question implied judgment to an extent, sure, but it was also genuine in that I truly do not understand why we as a society are not more proactive about these things. It isn't limited to fires either. In the face of all sorts of natural disasters we consistently optimize regulations for cost rather than safety. Consider the myriad examples of structures being built in flood prone areas.
It's worse than this. Their cap is 80% of the Insurer's profit. Not the Insurer's Parent company. So often the parent company will own the Insurer as a subsidiary and own the Pharmacy, Hospital, Healthcare etc under the parent company.
This way as costs go up, it's really just bypassing the 80%. Because the hospital can charge the insurance subsidary X amount, and then the hospital profits to the parent company.
There needs to be a law in the US that health insurance organizations cannot be owned by anyone who owns a healthcare provider. Nor can the insurance company own healthcare providers.
Two things to remember. First Tulsi Gabbard has significant Russia connections. She’s also a member of a prolific cult. She’s been protective of Russia for quite some time.
Second, the USSR had biolabs in Ukraine. Ukraine was a central hub for all their bio R&D. When the USSR collapsed these bio labs lost their funding. These bio labs contained many different pathogens and bio-weapons.
It was in the US and the worlds best interest to fund them and wind them down safely and securely.
You mean the bad neighbor whom Iran has constantly funded attacks on from those other neighbors? The bad neighbor who has IRGC Funded terrorist and militant cells along its very border? You mean the bad neighbor whom comes under rocket fire on a routine basis?
Are we forgetting that Iran is the one who has funded Hamas and Hezbollah and provided them safe haven?
Maybe that bad neighbor wouldn’t be a bad neighbor and be attacking the other neighbors. If the other neighbors did not provide shelter for those who wish to burn down the bad neighbors house?
Point is - Iran plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the destabilization of the region. That bad neighbor might be a good neighbor if Iran wasn’t attacking it via proxies.
But I suspect we’re not ready to have that nuanced conversation yet.
The people downvoting your comment should be aware of a few things:
1. The ceasefire with Lebanon specifically states that Hezbollah is to retreat to the Litany river, which they have not done. The ceasefire further states that military operations against Hezbollah are permitted so long as they remain south of the Litany, and so long as they attack Israel. They attack Israel daily - Israel is not breaking the ceasefire. That's why popular news use the term "Israel attacks despite ceasefire" instead saying "Israel breaks ceasefire" - because Israel is not the side breaking the ceasefire.
2. Hezbollah attacked Israel unprovoked on October 8th 2023, leading to the current conflict.
3. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been internally displaced since then. Popular media calls internally displaced Gazans refugees, yet I've never seen this term applied to the internally displaced Israelis.
You might find it interesting. https://youtu.be/TRpQW-TFTfw
reply