Can you clarify what you mean?
This movement is all about giving consumers more power and reforming section 1201 of the DMCA.
Louis Rossmann is big on consumer rights and the freedom to repair movement.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Following up on this. I sent an email out to the team and got a response already.
To summarize, they would rather the solution work through updates for security fixes, but they were willing to compromise if automatic updates were disabled with the option for users to manually update somehow:
Initial email:
Hi,
Just a quick question about this point in the bounty:
- Restore the fridge to its original functionality, by removing any possibility of adverts being presented on the display (all other smart features must be retained)
When you say, “all other smart features must be retained” does this mean that the solution must retain the ability to allow the fridge to automatically update its firmware if Samsung pushes out a future update?
Would it be okay if, instead, we disabled the automatic update but still allowed the end user to manually update if they really wanted to?
Or would it be okay if the end user could just reapply the solution after an official firmware update?
Thanks,
<Redacted>
Response:
Hey
<Redacted>,Just chatted with the team, and we think it would be better for it to have updates, and optional ones sounds like a sensible compromise. We don’t want to sacrifice security for control. I hope that answers your question. Thanks!
Yeah, one of the main points of this project is to help them reform Sec 1201 of the DMCA.
As far as for how to do it, I’m not sure if you would have to come up with something that would work even through an official Samsung update. From what I can tell, it would be enough to have it work with Home Assistant instead while blocking future updates. It’s definitely worth a question to the bounty team to get clarification on that point though.
There is a class action “mass arbitration” against Google for this:
https://www.classaction.org/nest-thermostat-support-arbitration
Additionally, the Fulu Foundation has a bounty reward out for anyone who is able to get these working with something like Home Assistant.
The pot is currently at $12,856.00 https://bounties.fulu.org/bounties/nest-learning-thermostat-gen-1-2
In the U.S., since doing so would circumvent measures put in place on these devices, publishing how to do this would go against sec. 1201 of the DMCA. This has a risk of a maximum sentence of 3-5 years in a Federal Prison. You can still privately show the Fulu Foundation how it is done, and they will be able to use this information to help their case in their attempt to reform this law.
If you live in the U.S., you can also help by letting your representatives know about this. Here’s an ActionNetwork page that Fulu set up so that you can easily do so: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/right-to-repair-reform-section-1201-of-the-dmca
Yeah, concerning the DRM part, the main goal of this bounty system is to help change legislation so that people are allowed to legally modify the things that they own.
Specifically reforming section 1201 of the DMCA. Right now, if you break the digital locks on the fridge to remove the ads and then publicize that information, you can get 3-5 years in federal prison. (With this bounty system you keep the information private between you and Futo).
So when they hear lobbyists say things like, “We believe this legislation is in search of problems that do not exist…” Louis can respond with “Well actually, millions of people use these products and if this person releases a solution to it, he goes to prison”
Louis talks about that in more detail here: https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/after-17-years-of-repair,-i’m-doing:d
Louis Rossmann’s Fulu Foundation put out a bounty for anyone who is able to come up with a way to modify the fridge to remove the ads.
The pot is currently at $11,558.00
https://bounties.fulu.org/bounties/samsung-familyhub-refrigerators
He did a video on it here: https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/we’ll-pay-you-10,000-to-de-shitify-this:7
Awesome image.
Minor nitpick here, but as someone who has actually experienced totality, there is one major issue with this image. During totality it gets dark to the level of a little after sunset (enough to trigger streetlights with automated sensors to turn on). Then, imagine looking in the direction of where the sun has already set and seeing the glow of a fading sunset. However, instead of coming from one direction, this glow is happening in every direction that you can see.
Basically there would be more color coming from behind the marine layer.
That being said, you could always claim that this is totality being experienced in some other solar system.
This news article is missing the statement from the school’s principle:
In a statement shared with parents, Principal Katie Smith said the school’s security department had reviewed and canceled a gun detection alert, while Smith (who didn’t immediately realize the alert had been canceled) reported the situation to the school resource officer, who called the local police. https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/25/high-schools-ai-security-system-confuses-doritos-bag-for-a-possible-firearm/
Looks like this system just flags footage for review and humans make the ultimate decision.
I’m not sure how the notification on this flag/event is worded. It’s possible that it should be worded differently to express a need to actually look at the footage.
In this case the principle probably jumped into panic mode, or didn’t understand the system well enough.
The study focuses on general questions asked of “market-leading AI Assistants” (there is no breakdown between which models were used for what).
It does not mention ground.news, or models that have been fed a single article and then summarized. Instead this focuses on when a user asks a service like ChatGPT (or a search engine) something like “what’s the latest on the war in Ukraine?”
Some of the actual questions asked for this research: “What happened to Michael Mosley?” “Who could use the assisted dying law?” “How is the UK addressing the rise in shoplifting incidents?” “Why are people moving to BlueSky?”
With those questions, the summaries and attribution of sources contain at least one significant error 45% of the time.
It’s important to note that there is some bias in this study (not that they’re wrong).
They have a vested interest in proving this point to drive traffic back to their articles.
Personally, I would find it more useful if they compared different models/services to each other as well as differences between asking general questions about recent news vs feeding specific articles and then asking questions about it.
With some of my own tests on locally run models, I have found that the “reasoning” models tend to be worse for some tasks than others.
It’s especially noticeable when I’m asking a model to transcribe the text from an image word for word. “Reasoning” models will usually replace the ending of many sentences with what it sounded like the sentence was getting at. While some “non-reasoning” models were able to accurately transcribe all of the text.
The biggest takeaway I see from this study is that, even though most people agree that it’s important to look out for errors in AI content, “when copy looks neutral and cites familiar names, the impulse to verify is low.”
Close, but not always. It will give out the answer based on the data it’s been trained on. There is also a bit of randomization with a “seed”.
So, in general it will give out the most average answer, but that seed can occasionally direct it down the path of a less common answer.
I agree with what you said. The only thing I want to point out is with your statement:
(+ its better for the environment)
Running models locally doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s better than the environment. Usually the hardware at cloud data centers is far more efficient at running intense processes like LLMs than your average home setup.
You would have to factor in whether your electricity provider is using green energy (or if you have solar) or not. And then you would also have to factor in whether you’re choosing to use a green data center (or a company that uses sustainable data centers) to run the model.
That being said, (in line with what you stated before) given the sensitive nature of the conversations this individual will be having with the LLM, a locally run option (or at least renting out a server from a green data center) is definitely the recommended option.
This whole situation reminds me of the movie, Lars and the Real Girl.
Depends on whether their 3D printer could print out metal objects or not.
Thanks, I missed that detail. It’s probably because of the “no class action” clause that this is a “mass arbitration”.
Unfortunately that usually means that Google is paying a specific company to decide on the outcome of the case. in this case it looks like American Arbitration Association has a contract with Google.
They’re supposed to be fair for both sides, but it’s been shown that they almost always rule in favor of the company that has pre-selected them.
If anyone is in this situation, they will likely have a much better chance by convincing a judge to allow a different 3rd party to arbitrate the case.