I think, charitably, what might have happened here is:
1. Author left out the diagnostic step that restoring the connectivity didn't fix the robot, because it didn't work.
2. Author did the technical analysis mentioned (there is a repository attached. I haven't verified that it actually has the level of technical analysis indicated).
3. Author took some creative liberties (possibly involving some AI-assisted punching-up) when writing the blog post story to make it more compelling in a way that made it feel a bit off and left me and others questioning its veracity.
Skimming the post and skipping past the fluff, I thought it was an interesting situation and bit of debugging.
The post really makes it unclear how permanent the disablement was, or how exactly "one script had been modified to prevent the main application from launching". Would really love to see some details here. Could author undo that change? Did they try to?
Whether or not the author used AI to write it, it’s a valid criticism that it sounds like it, it makes people not want to read it and the author should consider a less offputting style if they want more engagement.
Edit to add, it’s worth flagging AI articles if you don’t want to see them, just commenting on it ends up making for a poor discussion - this thread is littered with talk about how it’s AI written. Better just to vote for it to flagged/dead.
It sure sounds like they were aware of the relation, just not how or why one thing led to the other.
I've done restrictive or invasive things to a variety of devices I own. But if something isn't working the way it should, "reset back to a clean default state and test again" always comes before trying to engage a warranty service process.
The device might not be designed with a publicized tool to restore to a "clean state", and there's also the business signaling factor of "the device stopped working, so I will make sure sure it costs them money to handle a warranty claim".
Also the very frequent use of `—` gives me ChatGPT vibes, but may just be for editing or a personal style. Still enjoyed reading it.
Were they even able to see what was inside the traffic they blocked? Or are they just assuming it’s telemetry?
Does it really? In my opinion, if it stops working and it's under warranty, why not send it out for repair? They did no changes to the actual device, and apparently it was working fine for a few days without network connection, so if it suddenly stops working and it's under warranty that's the manufacturer's/store's problem, not theirs. Trying to fix it/reverse engineer it takes time, and I can see someone with these kinds of skills wanting to spend it on something else than trying to figure out how the manufacturer bricked their vacuum.
In addition, _someone_ is paying for the repairs under warranty, so if enough people were to do it, hopefully it would disincentivize completely blocking devices just because they can't reach a server.
Perhaps so, but it's easily confirmed by another owner of said device going through the same or similar procedure.
If there's any truth to this then everyone should know about it. (Frankly, from what I've seen lately I'd not be a bit surprised that manufacturers would stoop so low).
That said, given the comparatively small number of readers here on HN the chances of another experiencing the same issue would be small. As the story will have alerted everyone the truth will eventually out itself.
1. Has the technical skills to disassemble this device, trace circuit boards, design his own boards and custom software to interface with components to substantially reverse engineer this device.
2. Is totally mystified when his internet connected device stops working after he blocks its communication, and rather than try unblocking it and seeing if it works again, sends it out for repair repeatedly.
Something here doesn't add up. Tastes like bullshit to me.