Regarding resolution, I’ve been using my S21 Ultra at FHD quality (2400x1080) since I got it and it has a significantly large screen. I don’t see a point in higher resolutions but I definitely appreciate higher refresh rates. Makes it feel smoother and more responsive.
A time of flight sensor for autofocus
I’m extremely doubtful of this. Just the chance that a software kill switch exists is way too big of a threat for the US itself. Imagine if Russia or China managed to hack into their systems and get a hold of it, instantly bricking almost the entire US airforce. That would be catastrophic.
I always use wired to transfer photos and stuff, it’s just easier for me to browse on my PC. Plus my PC is at the edge of my WiFi range so transfer speeds would be way slower over wifi than USB 3.
Edit: also, didn’t know about pairdrop, that’s really cool
Unrelated but I remember last year noticing that what used to be a Tesla dealership was turned into a BYD dealership in my country and couldn’t help but feeling how it was so representative of the situation
Interesting that they seem to be using a consumer grade Snapdragon chip this time, typically they used weird chips ment for industry applications if I’m not mistaken. Wonder what sparked the change, did Qualcomm start supporting their chips for longer?
Wait, USB 2.0? Whyyyy, that’s unbearably slow
I’m conflicted on the battery. On one hand it’s nice to have a more solid back, it’ll feel nicer, on the other I like the idea of being able to hot swap the battery in a few seconds wherever without a screwdriver.
I mean Waymo is way better at their job than Tesla and are more responsible, but this rant makes them out to seem perfectly safe. Whilst they are miles safer than Tesla, they still struggle with edge cases and aren’t perfect.
Btw, regarding gaming laptops, it’s all relative really. I have a laptop I use as a server that runs 24/7 and it only uses like ~20W on average. That’s about 15kWh/month, which is realistically not that much, about 2.5€ with our electricity costs.
I mean I already wrote this out in reply to another comment but by their own numbers on the site announcing this they say that all phones combined yearly consume ~ 5.2 TWh, that’s 0.2% of the EU’s total anual consumption of 2.7PWh. They expect to reduce the power consumption by 20% (which I find questionable but ok) by 2030, reducing the consumption by 1.1TWh, thats just 0.04% of the total consumption. It really doesn’t matter that much. And as for your comment, laptops are already also extremely efficient, so it’s not like their power consumption is that significant either.
For context, a day’s charge of a phone is equal to running a typical 2kW heater for 1 minute, a years worth of charge is equal to running it for 6 hours. I like the label and don’t think it’s a bad addition, I just feel that that information could have been replaced with more useful stuff (like how ethically sourced it was or how long it will be supported for), the energy efficiency feels more like doing it just so it looks the same as the other ratings without much purpose for it.
I was about to comment how this number doesn’t make sense, but reading the article they mention the power savings for phones specifically is actually 2.2TWh per year, which might be realistic. The rest of the 14 TWh comes from landline phones (2.2TWh) and energy used to produce phones that would be saved (8.1 TWh) from the lifetime extension measures, that aren’t even related to the power efficiency of phones and won’t take place in the EU.
However, even these numbers are overinflated when you take into account they’re using a PEF factor of 1.9, meaning they multiply the actual power usage by 1.9 to adjust for stuff like power transfer losses (only 5-10%) and the inefficiency of generating power from e.g. fossil fuels (because e.g. petroleum might only convert 40% of its potential energy to electricity), but when people typically talk about power usage they’re talking about the actual amount of electricity that needs to be generated, not this abstract representation of it, meaning that e.g. phone electricity savings are actually only 1.1TWh-1.2TWh.
Battery life is already on there as a separate metric
Idk man, I’ve seen hundreds of examples showcasing how they significantly reduce bot traffic. The point isn’t to make it impossible for a bot to get past it, it’s to make it so expensive per request that it’s not worth it.
I like the other info, but I feel like energy efficiency is completely useless as a metric for phones. They already use such miniscule amounts of power that it really doesn’t matter that much, especially compared to appliances.
I mean, there are some who will be willing to do that, but the vast majority of average people won’t pay for something if a free version exists (like WhatsApp)
Edit: Ok I just Googled it and apparently their operational costs are less than 1$ per user per year which is far less than I expected. That’s way more sustainable in that case, possibly even through just donations.
I see a lot of people saying it’s time to switch to Signal, and I mean I agree in principle, it’s my main messaging app, but I don’t see how it can scale. It runs off of donations and the only reason it’s still functioning is because the users that are there are above averagely passionate about it and willing to donate. If it became the defacto messaging app I fear that there is no way they would be capable of financing that level of traffic.
Hah, jokes on them, I managed to fuck my earbuds’ microphones so they’re useless now.