Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

kuenzi.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 311 posts

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#241

Post by JohnFen »

humanistbot wrote: post #235
JohnFen wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just saying that calling someone a liar is a pretty extreme thing, and you should be really certain that they're lying before you do so. I don't see how you can have that level of certainty in this case. Now, saying that they're wrong is much more supportable and doesn't require you to engage in the tricky business of trying to read someone's mind.

Notice I didn't use the word lie or liar, because the traditional definitions require intent to deceive. We rarely have access to each other's true intentions, so I don't think it is a useful term to use in these discussions. What I believe is that we shouldn't be afraid of calling out people who casually spout easily disproven bullshit to make their argument. Saying you can only call out someone for being wrong does…

> If they aren't a liar, then they are at best intellectually dishonest

"Intellectually dishonest" is just a polite way to say "liar".

There's no need to go after someone personally when it's sufficient to simply point out that their statement was wrong. Why it was wrong isn't really important.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#242

Post by luma »

josephcsible wrote: post #218
luma wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't switches to temporarily bypass emissions controls in cars illegal, despite being a feature customers ask for? So you'd propose that we bans switches? You're saying that a microcontroller should never have a certain feature because you don't like how it has been implemented by a single company. Then you propose that nobody should have this feature ever because someone once used it to turn on a light reminding…

> You're saying that a microcontroller should never have a certain feature because you don't like how it has been implemented by a single company. It's not the implementation. I don't want hardware to ever be able to permanently make itself less useful, no matter how it's done or what it's being used for.

You're making an argument that PROM, WORM, efuses, etc all shouldn't be allowed to exist. They're used for all sorts of features, not just security. You might do well to apply the lesson of Chesterton's Fence before you call for a ban on things you don't actually understand.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#243

Post by whiddershins »

gwbas1c wrote: post #179
PietdeVries wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right!?! NSFW features like the Oral-B brush has, where you can order a special brush that helps you relieve certain stress in the bedroom. With the modified Sonicare firmware, the brush won't stop after 2 minutes but keeps "brushing" until, well, you're 'done'...

Reminds me of the time I bought a lamp plug-in dimmer on Amazon, and I noticed that my "personal massager" was one of the "frequently bought with" items. My wife and I had a lot of fun that night! Turns out the "personal massagers" work a lot better that way.

Wait, personal massagers are generally battery operated. How does this work with a plug in lamp dimmer.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#244

Post by Fatnino »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #205
tzs wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has long been a temptation for engineers. 40 years ago the textbook in the digital electronics class I took at Caltech had a chapter called "The Engineer as Dope Pusher" that talked about it. It gave as an example clothes dryers. The way most home clothes dryers working back then was you put the clothes in, you turn a dial on a timer to the number of minutes you want the dryer to run, and you press start. The me…

What do you mean by "reliable" wrt mechanical timers? I'm pretty sure the clothing dryer is a harsh environment for such a component (moisture and heat can easily cause corrosion and mechanical stress). Also, I guess timing gets less accurate over time. If there are rubbers preventing moisture from entering and oil from leaving, those rubbers will wear out.

Like another commenter said, the timer is segregated from the harsh dryer environment.

But also, some slop in the timing accuracy is just fine. The user doesn't really know how long precisely the drier needs to run to dry their clothes. They just know that if they set this timer to 45 then the clothes come out dry.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#245

Post by mkskm »

chrisstu wrote: post #152
uxcolumbo wrote: post #148

It's a toothbrush. Why does it need all this tech and an app? It's better to think about sustainability. I had an Oral B IO electric toothbrush. The retail price is nuts and the brushes are expensive and can't really be recycled. Imagine millions of these out there slowly rotting. I gave up on the IO and bought this one instead. Simple design and battery lasts longer too. https://www.trysuri.com/

This is a nice idea. The problem is longevity. I'd be willing to bet this product disappears after a few years (best case scenario) and you are left with no ability to buy new heads and end up binning the brush. So net net you probably waste more than buying a Philips/Oral-B brush that likely has 10+ years of support for brush heads, which have a far lower environmental impact than replacing the brush. In terms of co…

They make third-party compostable bamboo brush heads for Philips now, e.g. https://thesustainabletomorrow.com/products/bamboo-heads-phi...

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#246

Post by freedomben »

humanistbot wrote: post #235
JohnFen wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just saying that calling someone a liar is a pretty extreme thing, and you should be really certain that they're lying before you do so. I don't see how you can have that level of certainty in this case. Now, saying that they're wrong is much more supportable and doesn't require you to engage in the tricky business of trying to read someone's mind.

Notice I didn't use the word lie or liar, because the traditional definitions require intent to deceive. We rarely have access to each other's true intentions, so I don't think it is a useful term to use in these discussions. What I believe is that we shouldn't be afraid of calling out people who casually spout easily disproven bullshit to make their argument. Saying you can only call out someone for being wrong does…

I agree with nearly everything you said, but I do think you're making a distinction without a difference regarding using the words "liar" et al.

A better explanation of your position (as I perceive it) might be: I think OP is lying for rhetorical points. The alternative explanations just seem too unlikely to me, and Occam's Razor screams a high likelihood of lying.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#247

Post by AlbertCory »

mrfumier wrote: post #86
rendaw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I swap toothbrush heads 4-5 times a day (a couple times per brushing session) and one of my major issues until now was that I didn't know how long I had used any individual toothbrush head and when to replace them (I didn't start using all of them at the same time). With per-head usage tracking this is much easier... I wasn't expecting it, but I'm glad Phlips is considering and supporting my use case.

I think the use case is a family using the same electric toothbrush with a different head for each member. They used to provide color rings to attach to the head, in order to differencing.

but that's not what he said. He said a single brushing session.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#248

Post by mrguyorama »

tzs wrote: post #193
version_five wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineer gonna engineer. Someone probably just had the time and misplaced passion for security, and when they explained at the weekly standup that they'd added lockout after three attempts, everybody just nodded and moved on.

This has long been a temptation for engineers. 40 years ago the textbook in the digital electronics class I took at Caltech had a chapter called "The Engineer as Dope Pusher" that talked about it. It gave as an example clothes dryers. The way most home clothes dryers working back then was you put the clothes in, you turn a dial on a timer to the number of minutes you want the dryer to run, and you press start. The me…

Ah yes, the mythical world where engineers are in charge of deciding which features ship instead of management.

Re: Hacking my “smart” toothbrush

#249

Post by mrb »

mschild wrote: post #238
mrb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably don't brush correctly: you need to apply sufficient pressure on your teeth so the bristles can scrub the enamel well enough. Or else there is no way your head has no visible deterioration after 5 months at 5 min per brushing.

The toothbrush has an integrated pressure sensor and starts vibrating when you apply too much

Then I don't believe you have no visible deterioration.
Post reply on HN