Sardinia has been inhospitable since the Roman times - and probably before since we don't have much history prior to Tacitus complaining about the heat on the island.
But now we need to make new stuff to live there... which people have been living there since before history so it's not exactly inhospitable. When your car seat melts that market has a solution, more production! Maybe not even of car seats that can stand the heat, just throw out the ones that melt and replace them until they melt again.
These actions without change are just going to exacerbate the issue.
Not sure how true this is, even walking around inside a museum in Lisbon my iPhone was deemed too hot to charge using a MagSafe battery and promptly died.
It actually can make a major difference because the differential shrinks quite a bit, and the rate of heat shedding is proportional to that difference. If your device has a maximum temperature of 50 degrees (probably dictated by the battery controller), it can shed 3 times less energy at 40 degrees than at 20 degrees. From there, every degree matters: at 45 degrees, it's 1/6 and at 47 it's 1/10.
These are temperatures you can easily reach in the sun, in cars, or in enclosed spaces like backpacks.
Oh no, electronic waste doesn't get trashed, it gets shipped to africa where people with no other options dig through actual lead and other poison filled piles of discarded electronics for anything that might be sellable to a scrapper for the equivalent of a few pennies to pay for something to stop their belly from rumbling for a few hours.
Look how efficient capitalism is guys! We reuse the metals in electronics! The buyers even get to make a tidy profit off this absolute human misery! Meanwhile Ukraine can't export it's grain because we refuse to give them the tools to fight off Russia, Alfalfa continues to be grown in a natural desert to be sold to another desert, and a person you have never heard of who has contributed nothing to anything other than a few meetings between other rich people who nobody has heard of takes their private plane across state lines so they can go to their favorite place for dinner.
No, some people believe they are doing "the right thing" and putting the in kiosks that say "recycling" at their nearest grocery store! They usually don't know that there's not really a first world system for recycling anything more complicated than a mono-material aluminum beverage can so it just gets sent to an african community where what I described above happens and the people running the kiosk make a little money by selling it to whoever runs those "recycling" centers in africa.
I live in Austria, in a building without AC, it's currently 33°C in my apartment and my iPhone 14 Pro refuses to charge to more than 80% due to an overheating warning.
It's not a great idea. I've seen hardware fail because someone took it from the hot trunk of a car into an airconditioned building and the condensate from the hot air caused short circuits.
That's about preventing water to come in via gaps in ports etc.
Condensation is a different beast - unless your phone has literal vacuum, 0% humidity air or some other inert gas inside of it, in some thermal shock condensation gradient would form through it.
Electronic circuits themselves would have to be protected somehow, pins of processors etc. We are not there yet, not with cheap disposable electronics like iphones or androids (compared to say military or deep diving or space-grade electronics where everything is built for massive redundancy and abuse from scratch)
Google's Nexus 5x (IIRC) was given to Google employees as a holiday gift. It had such awful thermal, that a system update could overheat and shut down the phone.
The official workaround (internally, at Google), was to put it in the fridge before starting the update.
It was the most awful phone I've ever had. The polar opposite of the Nokia's and Ericsson's of my youth. I spent hours daydreaming about how I would destroy the phone as soon as I could get a new one. Throwing it into a wall, jumping on it, dropping it from a tall bridge.. It gave me a little bit of solace.
Stupid Apple only tested their phones in constant temperature air conditioned offices to be honest.
It shuts down under zero too. I can't take my phone out of the pocket in winter while outside? It even happened once when I took it out while waiting in my car with the engine off. It was cold but definitely above freezing.
I assume not many phones are placed 2m above ground though, although not on the surface either, so the measurement should be only needed for getting an idea about the heat.
Occasionally I do put my phone down on surfaces. Sure, elevated surfaces like retaining walls, outdoor tables, car dashboards, etc., but I'd expect those to behave a lot more like the surfaces in the satellite image than like circulating air 2m above ground.
you made me think of an experiment i did (1.83m tall) in the foothills at higher elevation north of Phoenix last week: i tried walking barefoot on white concrete sidewalk at noon, for about 5 meters. The UV is extremely high here, and temps have been over 110F (around mid 40s celsius) for weeks a few hundred feet lower in elevation.
It's scaldingly hot at the surface, while up around 2m up it's hot but MUCH less hot.
Something it keep in mind with dogs, obviously. It's basically dawn and after dusk for walking here for another few weeks.
There’s a huge difference between surface temperature directly in the sun and not. The air temperatures in weather reports are measured in the shade. The summer sun can literally cook eggs in some hotter regions.
I'm the CEO of a startup specializing in personal electronics and communications equipment designed to withstand rising global temperatures. We're in our second round of funding and are ramping up production as we speak. Our goal is to get global-warming-hardened phones into the hands of nearly every human on the planet before it's too late.
Sure, the mass-manufacture of 5 billion more phones is only going to contribute to this global warming, especially since we're making these in third-world countries under lax environmental laws. But that just means we'll be selling even more phones!
Automated border defenses, both lethal and nonlethal. Weapons that are technically not lethal, but make the victim wish they were (bonus points if the weapon doesn't leave any external marks on the victim, to prevent media backlash). Weapons and procedures for destroying damns with minimal damage to your own country that lies downstream. Hypertargeted cloudseeding, to make sure it rains on your fields instead of your neighbors'.
So many new opportunities for psychopaths to earn lots and lots of money.
Pro tip: constitute as NGO, the tax structure is very convenient and most of the capital will come from traffickers anyway, so you cannot exactly declare it.
Just make sure money is properly laundered before accepting it as donation. Art auction are great to shift large capital quickly.
Unfortunately, even if we stopped all global emissions at this very moment we will not avoid all of the serious outcomes from climate change. That doesn't mean that we should give up, but we should prepare for the world to keep changing. That means that we need people working on solving emissions but also that we need people working on adaptation to the changing world.
Adaptation is a lot less sexy than directly solving climate change, but if we don't do it a lot more people are going to have a much worse quality of life than they need to.
I had originally wrote 'die' too, because that's true as well -- but it also applies to things ranging from reduced smartphone access to loss of property from increasing wildfires. And these will all have effects on us too.
I assume such a thing would be best as an IP thing, because device companies wouldn't find it particularly hard in a technical sense when they have a powerful business need to make heat tolerant phones, but if you can mine the path with patents beforehand, you get some nice fees when they do.
So, that notion of putting up solar panel roofs to cover car lots might not just be a good idea, but necessary to prevent the insides of cars parked outside from melting.
I live in a hot climate and Carplay is barely usable because my iPhone X slows to a crawl whenever it's >80F. Wireless charging exacerbates the problem.
If you use AC in your car, you could get one of those iPhone holders that sticks into the AC vent -- then the AC would be directly blowing cool air onto your phone, which should keep it from overheating.
One of the nice things of the Garmin GPS I keep in my glovebox (older car, no Android Auto/Carplay) - it's rated for -20° to 55°C operating temperatures.
Yeah, my two week holiday to Italy a couple years ago in ~40C weather (with lots of queuing in direct sunlight) permanently took 10 percentage points off of my then brand-new iPhone’s battery health. Extreme temperature and batteries don’t mix.
> We need to take immediate action to reduce our carbon footprint and prevent further damage to our planet.
We do.
Unfortunately the lag in the system is huge; if we somehow stopped oil use tomorrow, it would be some time, possibly decades, before temperatures even stopped rising and began to fall.
I find it profoundly unsettling witnessing how many individuals, both within my immediate circles and across the digital landscape here in Germany, outright dismiss the implications of climate change. They label it a "leftist deception", expressing contempt for those striving to mitigate its effects, including figures such as Greta Thunberg who are often subjected to their derision. These individuals assert that the climate has always fluctuated, using this as a justification to make no alterations whatsoever in their lifestyle, including meat consumption and vehicle use. Their defiance even extends to hostility toward governmental efforts aiming to introduce legislation to combat climate change. This unwillingness to acknowledge and adapt to the reality of our changing environment has me genuinely worried about our collective future.
The campaign to dislodge the main stream media and replace it with propaganda has been very successful. It remains to be seen if we can recover from this. Personally, I think we do, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
A reason the right is so against this is because aspects of their lifestyles are targeted by climate activists (who are largely on the left), while the left, especially left politicians, don't see much need to alter their lifestyles. They still fly (rich ones in private jets), use the AC, and get tax breaks on EVs that still run on energy generated by oil and gas, all while screaming that the world is ending, declaring themselves superior, and spewing derision like the above.
Perhaps if we both sides had some self control and didn't make everything left vs. right we could solve problems.
Alternatively - capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with the fight against climate change. It will take something more like a war-economy, with the free market reigned in, lots of command and control and lots of government rules.
Both the left and the right realise this. It's just that the left are happy about this and the right are not (and would rather burn everything to the ground instead).
Capitalism and incentives for companies and private citizens are the only way we will defeat climate change. If you think we'd have no climate change if we were all state owned or communists, you're naive. Also, your framing that the only way to give defeat something is to give up essential freedoms and have a command-and-control economy creates more pushback to the idea of even fighting climate change. You're just feeding right into the narrative that the entire thing is about control. Humans have conquered tons of things with markets and incentives, and we will do it again, without falling into a totalitarian regime.
I don't think I fully agree with your reasoning. I feel it's more of a conservative vs progressive thing. Switching to EVs from fossil fuel cars needs someone to be at least slightly open to the idea. If anyone has a "They didn't do this in my pop's era, I'm not going to do it now!" attitude it's unlikely they'll be happy to switch.
(There's also some folks on the conservative side who would rather go back to older tech saying stuff like "BPA is making the x gay" "Lithium mining is bad" which is another thing altogether. Not defending or attacking either side here.)
A lot of people that are "conservatives" live in areas where electric currently is just not feasible. The US is highly car dependent. Even in Nashville it can take an hour to get to the other side of the city sometimes. It's worse in more rural areas; not even mentioning that electric cars are far more expensive for people that are middle to lower class. So, their pushback sometime is because it just makes their life worse.
If you are a conservative it's likely you have a place to park your car at night on your own property which means you can easily install a 3kw charger from the same circuit your dryer is on and cover 95% of your car use cases for very very cheap and often without even calling an electrician.
Conservatives don't do that because they dont actually give a fuck about how much gas costs and don't want to give up their big powerful truck that never leaves the pavement. For anyone with a parking spot on their property and a less than 40 mile commute, electric cars are already feasible.
40-mile commute? That's cute. Some people have to travel 60-80 miles to work both ways. My parent's nearest grocery store is 30+ miles away. The cheapest new electric car is $35k+ the newest gas vehicle is $12k. That doesn't even mention that there are no hard numbers on longevity of electric vehicles, people in rural areas have vehicles that are 20-30 years old. An electric car lasting that long doesn't exist because they haven't been around that long, and you'd have to drop thousands for battery replacement in that lifespan. I would love an all-electric, or at least a clean alternative, future, but it's just not feasible for some people. HN is so disconnected sometimes, clearly have only ever lived in cities and are used to relative wealth.
There's various positions from the other side. Essentially people on your side of the divide spent the last decade burning their goodwill, so when they're asked to sacrifice even more "but this is for real", they're not convinced. People are noticing patterns, they are noticing who is always criticizing them and blaming them and asking them to sacrifice, and they're simply fatigued and shrugging.
1. Constant crying wolf about climate change. I've been told we're "10 years away from climate catostrophe" since I was a kid in the 90s. But this time it's really about to happen, right?
2. There's people who agree with you that global warming is a serious threat, but refuse to be "economical cuckolds" by sacrificing their economical safety, while countries that pollute far more are given breaks. The argument is why should they, as members of the western middle and working class, be the ones to sacrifice and suffer while the Chinese and Indians don't have to? All because decades ago the elites of their country profited off industrialisation? The same elites that keep screwing them over?
"Oh but the Indians don't produce as much CO2 per capita" so? They would if they could. The average Indian makes almost zero conscious decisions to be environmentally-friendly compared to a westerner. As globalisation keeps making the western worker poorer and the rest of the world wealthier, so will the Indians' CO2 production rise.
And the only reason CO2 per capita is lower is because those countries left their population growth completely unchecked. You're asking western people who can't even afford to have a kid to sacrifice while those on the other end of the world don't have to.
3. RE Greta, people see Greta Thunberg as the typical propaganda mascot of the elites: privileged, pretentious, attention-seeking Twitterati nepobaby who only seems to call out westerners, even though westerners make more conscious environmental choices than any other demographic. People have seen this playbook many times before, she's just a newer model on the assemblyline of insufferable leftists that the average person changes the channel as soon as their mug is on the screen.
> 1. Constant crying wolf about climate change. I've been told we're "10 years away from climate catostrophe" since I was a kid in the 90s. But this time it's really about to happen, right?
A large part of the problem is that it's "we have 10 years to fix stuff, otherwise it will get really uncomfortable in 100 years". Followed by "ok, we didn't do anything and we will be kind of screwed, but if we don't correct course now things will be even worse in 90 years". But the big bad is always too far away for people to feel the consequences, so they feel like nothing happened.
Of course the other part is people running with fringe scenarios like "Europe will freeze over in a couple years".
Never forget that 20% of Americans reject the concept of evolution outright, up to and including admitting they believe the earth to be less than 10k years old
American christianity refuses to acknowledged reality, so of course they don't care that scientists say the earth is warming because all of science is a Devil's plot to make them stop believing in God.
Seriously, it's that simple. As many as 20% of Americans simply have no fucking clue how the earth works and refuse to accept anything from any "expert" because they legitimately believe it to be a test of their religion. No evidence will ever convince them because they abandoned reality and evidence from the very beginning!
If only there were some quantitative data that tracks trends over time over the last century; like temperature, growing season, ice core consistency.
If only there were some climate disaster with 3 intersecting 100 year storms in 1993 that impacted the entire US East Coast, it could even be made into a movie with George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Diane lane.
"100 year" flooding events in New Orleans, Houston, Germany, Spain, England, Mississippi, Italy.
"100 year" drought events in Spain, Mississippi, US West.
"100 year" forest fires in Siberia, California, Canada, Greece.
Gee, the climate isn't changing at all.
I was thinking about subtle ways we've adapted as I watched a classic car event in the South East United States, recently. Wow, just 50 years ago, air conditioning was an option (still not on USPS or UPS trucks); 30 years ago we didn't have window tint. Our houses now have low e windows, we have better insulation, better polyurethane foam sealing, bigger and more air conditioners. But the climate isn't changing?
> And the only reason CO2 per capita is lower is because those countries left their population growth completely unchecked.
Poorer countries have more population growth. This is not because rich countries decided to "act responsibly", but that people choose to have fewer kids for other reasons, which is well document across the board. And access to contraceptives.
Moreover, poorer countries run the most CO2-intensive parts of the global supply chain: production. Rich countries also send them their trash because they don't want to burn it themselves.
Is it true that we've been wasting time with signal politics in the West? Yes. Do other countries, like China, also have a responsibility? Yes. But, pointing fingers and whataboutism is exactly the type of "twitterati" style non-action that got us absolutely nowhere in the first place.
Yours is a pretty common take I see among climate skeptics, and it's getting downvoted without serious rebuttals, so I'll try a serious rebuttal.
1. If you're not seeing how it's already happening, maybe you don't want to see it? Forest fires, extreme heat waves, coral bleaching, flooding, escalating storms, ... For sure there are denials of those things all over the internet ("it's always been this bad", "it's not actually that bad"), but those denials are wrong when you fact check them. And this is nothing really, we've barely had any consequences of global warming. If you go back and look at the IPCC predictions even from the 90's you'll find they were pretty accurate with where we are today. The current IPCC report is pretty much settled science, and the outlook is not good.
2. The BRIC countries definitely need to do their part, but "what about tommy" is not a defense in kindergarten and for sure is not one for grown up countries. Most of the carbon that's up there was put there by the west, and the west is still putting more up there year by year than ever before. The notion that the west already did its part is provably false. Western countries carry the largest responsibility because they're the ones that "spent" the carbon budget preventing others from industrializing in the same way. If and when they are doing their part, then and only then will they have the moral high ground to start demanding the same from other countries.
3. Greta Thunberg has a solid handle on climate science, a more solid grasp than most of her critics, and is mostly right about climate facts. She is also very extreme in her climate opinions, which has allowed others to dismiss her as a wacko. Usually her speeches when read in their entirety make a lot of sense, but the distortion that gets reported by popular press makes it easy to dismiss her. What I would suggest is to go straight to the source and read her climate book. It contains her actual views and the facts they are based on, and if nothing else it will allow you to empathize with her point of view, even if you don't end up agreeing with it. If you think she's a puppet or a wacko I feel confident in saying you know nothing about her at all, and have been forming your opinions based on misrepresentations of her in the media.
I am one of those who opposes government attempt to solve global warming, because all the attempts are the usual hairebrained moves of people completely out of their depth.
GW will be solved by new technology, or not solved at all. It has to be a collective action across the world that will cause massive pain and decreased living stanards, which people aren't willing to do.
Pissing in the pot by cutting down on meat or getting an electric car are not going to make enough of a change and they will cause people to think that they have done their part.
It is impossible to solve climate change without government intervention. Capitalism is working, slowly, because solar and wind are cheaper.
But we will hit wall where the carbon-free alternatives are more expensive. The government will need to ban gas cars at some point, or use carbon tax to make them unaffordable. Same with carbon-free concrete, big industry, natural gas appliances, and transportation.
Also, we will need to do significant carbon capture, and that is pure cost. The government will need to pay for it with some kind of tax.
Uptake of EV cars will largely be an S-curve, and average length of car ownership is a bit less than a decade. As people get a new car they're increasingly more likely to get an EV. I would not be surprised if we hit 60-70% EV cars by 2030. and probably 80% by 2035
Given our planet's population of over 8 billion humans, it's simply not viable to retain our current consumption rates, let alone increase them for those living below the prevailing standards.
Humanity's collective impact on the environment is vast and ever-growing. While technological innovation is crucial and holds a significant potential in addressing climate change, it's also essential to reevaluate and adapt our lifestyles. Our approach to problem-solving can't solely rely on future technology; we must also integrate sustainable habits into our daily lives. Even seemingly small changes, when adopted on a global scale, can lead to considerable shifts. We must consider this a cooperative effort rather than simply an individual contribution.
I was surprised to learn that iPhones and iPads are only specified to operate between 0-35C (32-95F) ambient[1] -- even cheap consumer-grade ICs typically work up to 70C/158F. 95F/35C is a perfectly ordinary outdoor temperature during the peak of summer in America's south, and temperatures below 32F/0C are common anywhere it snows. (0C is the standard lower limit of the consumer temperature grade, however.)
I suppose cooling such a small, dense device much be difficult, and having everything pressed against the battery (with its presumably lower temperature limit) probably doesn't help either. Still, I feel like a portable electronic device ought to be able to work in places other than California.
I keep my own phone in my pocket so it's unlikely to have a problem, but I've seen one die quick kept in a bag and we weren't really sure if temperature was the cause..
My first phone (a Motorola flip phone) bit the dust after some time in my pocket walking around below freezing temperatures. Some cells within the battery burst/swelled so the battery casing pushed away from the phone and lost contact. If I pushed it in, it worked as long as I maintained contact with the pressure.
Cold isn't usually a problem so long as you take proper precautions to not allow condensation to form inside the phone when warming it back up again - that's what electronics manufacturers are concerned about.
VHS VCRs used to suffer from condensation issues, and some had sensors for this: the display would show "DEW" if it detected internal moisture, and you've have to wait before inserting a tape.
Yeah I have been collecting these stats on my own devices about their operating temperatures and I'm often surprised how much smaller the range is than I was expecting. For example:
Kobo eReader: 0 - 45C
Pixel 6: 0 - 35C
Macbook Pro: 10C - 35C
Pixel Buds: 0 - 35C
Garmin heart rate strap: 0 - 40C
Garmin bike computer: -20 - 60C
From talking to manufacturers I often hear "it will probably work outside this, but you'll have worse battery performance and eventually issues will arise". Another thing I hear is that, below zero, for wearable devices they will often stay at an OK temperature if they are in a pocket or beside your body.
Garmin's strategy makes sense: a heart beat strap benefits from your body's temperature regulation, both to keep cool and keep warm; a bike computer has to take what it gets, but at least gets a lot of convection to keep temps reasonable when it sits in the sun.
I'm most surprised that a MacBook Pro with its active cooling doesn't have a higher max temp than a smartphone.
Active cooling effectiveness depends significantly on the delta between incoming temperature and the heat source temperature, and the relationship is worse than linear I think.
My concern about Garmin's strap was mostly that I do a lot of running below 0 in the winter but to their credit their support was very helpful and said it was unlikely to actually damage the HRM device given the conditions I described -- they even offered to send me some free batteries since I might go through them quicker.
The human body is ~36C only internally. I just used an IR thermometer, and the inside of my ear canal is currently 32C, plus a large portion the earbud is external to your ear canal.
EDIT: Out of curiosity I also measured the temperature of my airpod at the ear canal tip - 27C.
The human body varies and it may also be 37.5C. Sick people even more. Might still want to use earphones. Ear canals get pretty close to core temp, as they're near the brain. If you're measuring 32C either you are in a cold environment or you might be misaiming (these things aren't that easy to use, or very accurate).
In a warmer climate, the delta gets even less. So yeah, it's a bit surprising that wearables aren't rated for body temperature.
I'm guessing iPhone was designed to be used in airconditioned malls and office towers.
Like how the only people you see outside in Kuwait are migrant workers.
When I'm sitting on my South facing apartment balcony I can't use my phone which is annoying.
Yes, easily. I'm surprised to see this, honestly. I've never had detectable problems with my devices when I am outside in the heat but I will be more conscious of this going forward. 35C is frankly laughable.
They don't even work in California. I bought a new Pixel last summer and a few weeks later, was running around San Jose on a day that was around 95-100F (car doesn't have working AC). I left my phone on the front passenger seat in the sun for a few minutes and was getting warnings about the device overheating, apps were running terribly, and I had issues for some weeks after.
And that's in the Bay - most of my friends live outside of it, where highs of 110F aren't uncommon.
The sun heats very well and temperatures are measured in the shadow for a good reason. Putting a phone in the sun is simply not a good idea and definitely not helpful when it comes to the question of how much heat such a device should withstand.
The point is that putting a device in the sun will rapidly raise it's internal temperatures past its operating limits.
"on a day that was around 95-100F"
When you add solar heating that device is going to get hot and quickly. The internal temperatures of the SOC and battery will be out of range and the device will need to shut down to cool off.
Reporting in from the American South, it's been super hot lately and if I have my iPhone in my pocket while doing anything outside remotely active it starts acting up after a few minutes. It can be pretty rough when I'm trying to do yard work
You have to account for the heat of the phone itself. It is not unusual for CPUs to operate at 90 degrees celsius.
Modern phones have a lot of power, generate a lot of peak heat from their SoC but has the worst possible cooling scenario - held near hit skin, covered in leather cases, etc. When you start at 35C you only have 25C left until the mentioned 70C, which components near the SoC Would quickly surpass.
Higher rating is unlikely to help much - you need less heat generated or better heat dissipation.
My iPhone usually stops working if I lie in the sun using it for tethering and it's in the sun. I have to put a sunshade over it. This is in London which is not super hot usually. Though I'd say at a high temp than 35. It's probably like 50C when it stops working I'd guess from feeling it.
The reason for this is that while all the individual electronic components, the PCB, and even likely the peripherals such as the display panel, are all very likely rated for at least 70-85C, the lack of active cooling in smartphones is why an ambient temperature of >35C would spell disaster for smartphones (fortunately due to temperature awareness of the SoC, the SoC just shuts off).
Even though the smartphone SoCs may dissipate around <2W of heat, to transfer that heat out of the chassis is pretty hard. This is coming from experience from working on a consumer electronics product where we have run at least 20 heat simulations on Autodesk and learnt how tough it is to dissipate out even 0.75W heat.
I wonder if hardshell cases might also lower the heat tolerance of phones meaningfully. My husband convinced me to switch to a nicer dbrand case for my pixel6A (the lighter/thinner one I bought from google had started warping), and I swear it gets hotter faster now.
I mean trivially yes. The vast majority of the issue phones have with heat is getting it out of the phone and if you put a 4mm piece of insulating plastic between the phone body and the only source of cooling it has (ambient air) then you just made a shitty oven.
Tangential - Today I have figured out that FT2232 chips on Infineon kits and Infineon MiniWiggler probe does not work when room is cca 35-38°C. It just kept connecting and disconnecting to the computer. Tried 2 different devices, different USBs on computer and different USB cables and nothing.
When I cooled down down my room to 25°C via A/C, everything started working again.
136 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadThese actions without change are just going to exacerbate the issue.
I think it was on HN recently
These are temperatures you can easily reach in the sun, in cars, or in enclosed spaces like backpacks.
Look how efficient capitalism is guys! We reuse the metals in electronics! The buyers even get to make a tidy profit off this absolute human misery! Meanwhile Ukraine can't export it's grain because we refuse to give them the tools to fight off Russia, Alfalfa continues to be grown in a natural desert to be sold to another desert, and a person you have never heard of who has contributed nothing to anything other than a few meetings between other rich people who nobody has heard of takes their private plane across state lines so they can go to their favorite place for dinner.
Not sure if that's a valid way to charge your phone or not. Would be interesting if it was!
Condensation is a different beast - unless your phone has literal vacuum, 0% humidity air or some other inert gas inside of it, in some thermal shock condensation gradient would form through it.
Electronic circuits themselves would have to be protected somehow, pins of processors etc. We are not there yet, not with cheap disposable electronics like iphones or androids (compared to say military or deep diving or space-grade electronics where everything is built for massive redundancy and abuse from scratch)
The official workaround (internally, at Google), was to put it in the fridge before starting the update.
It was the most awful phone I've ever had. The polar opposite of the Nokia's and Ericsson's of my youth. I spent hours daydreaming about how I would destroy the phone as soon as I could get a new one. Throwing it into a wall, jumping on it, dropping it from a tall bridge.. It gave me a little bit of solace.
It shuts down under zero too. I can't take my phone out of the pocket in winter while outside? It even happened once when I took it out while waiting in my car with the engine off. It was cold but definitely above freezing.
you made me think of an experiment i did (1.83m tall) in the foothills at higher elevation north of Phoenix last week: i tried walking barefoot on white concrete sidewalk at noon, for about 5 meters. The UV is extremely high here, and temps have been over 110F (around mid 40s celsius) for weeks a few hundred feet lower in elevation.
It's scaldingly hot at the surface, while up around 2m up it's hot but MUCH less hot.
Something it keep in mind with dogs, obviously. It's basically dawn and after dusk for walking here for another few weeks.
Sure, the mass-manufacture of 5 billion more phones is only going to contribute to this global warming, especially since we're making these in third-world countries under lax environmental laws. But that just means we'll be selling even more phones!
Don't watch the world burn, warm yourself by the fire
So many new opportunities for psychopaths to earn lots and lots of money.
Just make sure money is properly laundered before accepting it as donation. Art auction are great to shift large capital quickly.
Add "blockchain-for-X" and you got yourself a new customer.
Adaptation is a lot less sexy than directly solving climate change, but if we don't do it a lot more people are going to have a much worse quality of life than they need to.
ftfy.
So this is our life now. It makes me sad.
Phones won't charge, apps crash, the UV destroys things at a rapid rate.
Human hubris won't let that happen; seems like we'd still rather throw money at attempting to control nature[1].
[1]https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/13/it-will-cost-110-bill...
We do.
Unfortunately the lag in the system is huge; if we somehow stopped oil use tomorrow, it would be some time, possibly decades, before temperatures even stopped rising and began to fall.
Perhaps if we both sides had some self control and didn't make everything left vs. right we could solve problems.
Both the left and the right realise this. It's just that the left are happy about this and the right are not (and would rather burn everything to the ground instead).
(There's also some folks on the conservative side who would rather go back to older tech saying stuff like "BPA is making the x gay" "Lithium mining is bad" which is another thing altogether. Not defending or attacking either side here.)
Conservatives don't do that because they dont actually give a fuck about how much gas costs and don't want to give up their big powerful truck that never leaves the pavement. For anyone with a parking spot on their property and a less than 40 mile commute, electric cars are already feasible.
1. Constant crying wolf about climate change. I've been told we're "10 years away from climate catostrophe" since I was a kid in the 90s. But this time it's really about to happen, right?
2. There's people who agree with you that global warming is a serious threat, but refuse to be "economical cuckolds" by sacrificing their economical safety, while countries that pollute far more are given breaks. The argument is why should they, as members of the western middle and working class, be the ones to sacrifice and suffer while the Chinese and Indians don't have to? All because decades ago the elites of their country profited off industrialisation? The same elites that keep screwing them over?
"Oh but the Indians don't produce as much CO2 per capita" so? They would if they could. The average Indian makes almost zero conscious decisions to be environmentally-friendly compared to a westerner. As globalisation keeps making the western worker poorer and the rest of the world wealthier, so will the Indians' CO2 production rise.
And the only reason CO2 per capita is lower is because those countries left their population growth completely unchecked. You're asking western people who can't even afford to have a kid to sacrifice while those on the other end of the world don't have to.
3. RE Greta, people see Greta Thunberg as the typical propaganda mascot of the elites: privileged, pretentious, attention-seeking Twitterati nepobaby who only seems to call out westerners, even though westerners make more conscious environmental choices than any other demographic. People have seen this playbook many times before, she's just a newer model on the assemblyline of insufferable leftists that the average person changes the channel as soon as their mug is on the screen.
None of them address the fact of: is this problem real? We're seeing evidence everywhere that it is.
I understand the problem sacrifice and "fairness" in how to address the issue but making it all about personal resentment is pathetic.
A large part of the problem is that it's "we have 10 years to fix stuff, otherwise it will get really uncomfortable in 100 years". Followed by "ok, we didn't do anything and we will be kind of screwed, but if we don't correct course now things will be even worse in 90 years". But the big bad is always too far away for people to feel the consequences, so they feel like nothing happened.
Of course the other part is people running with fringe scenarios like "Europe will freeze over in a couple years".
https://ncse.ngo/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-...
American christianity refuses to acknowledged reality, so of course they don't care that scientists say the earth is warming because all of science is a Devil's plot to make them stop believing in God.
Seriously, it's that simple. As many as 20% of Americans simply have no fucking clue how the earth works and refuse to accept anything from any "expert" because they legitimately believe it to be a test of their religion. No evidence will ever convince them because they abandoned reality and evidence from the very beginning!
Hate to break it to you but it's already happening.
If only there were some quantitative data that tracks trends over time over the last century; like temperature, growing season, ice core consistency.
If only there were some climate disaster with 3 intersecting 100 year storms in 1993 that impacted the entire US East Coast, it could even be made into a movie with George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Diane lane.
"100 year" flooding events in New Orleans, Houston, Germany, Spain, England, Mississippi, Italy.
"100 year" drought events in Spain, Mississippi, US West.
"100 year" forest fires in Siberia, California, Canada, Greece.
Gee, the climate isn't changing at all.
I was thinking about subtle ways we've adapted as I watched a classic car event in the South East United States, recently. Wow, just 50 years ago, air conditioning was an option (still not on USPS or UPS trucks); 30 years ago we didn't have window tint. Our houses now have low e windows, we have better insulation, better polyurethane foam sealing, bigger and more air conditioners. But the climate isn't changing?
Poorer countries have more population growth. This is not because rich countries decided to "act responsibly", but that people choose to have fewer kids for other reasons, which is well document across the board. And access to contraceptives.
Moreover, poorer countries run the most CO2-intensive parts of the global supply chain: production. Rich countries also send them their trash because they don't want to burn it themselves.
Is it true that we've been wasting time with signal politics in the West? Yes. Do other countries, like China, also have a responsibility? Yes. But, pointing fingers and whataboutism is exactly the type of "twitterati" style non-action that got us absolutely nowhere in the first place.
1. If you're not seeing how it's already happening, maybe you don't want to see it? Forest fires, extreme heat waves, coral bleaching, flooding, escalating storms, ... For sure there are denials of those things all over the internet ("it's always been this bad", "it's not actually that bad"), but those denials are wrong when you fact check them. And this is nothing really, we've barely had any consequences of global warming. If you go back and look at the IPCC predictions even from the 90's you'll find they were pretty accurate with where we are today. The current IPCC report is pretty much settled science, and the outlook is not good.
2. The BRIC countries definitely need to do their part, but "what about tommy" is not a defense in kindergarten and for sure is not one for grown up countries. Most of the carbon that's up there was put there by the west, and the west is still putting more up there year by year than ever before. The notion that the west already did its part is provably false. Western countries carry the largest responsibility because they're the ones that "spent" the carbon budget preventing others from industrializing in the same way. If and when they are doing their part, then and only then will they have the moral high ground to start demanding the same from other countries.
3. Greta Thunberg has a solid handle on climate science, a more solid grasp than most of her critics, and is mostly right about climate facts. She is also very extreme in her climate opinions, which has allowed others to dismiss her as a wacko. Usually her speeches when read in their entirety make a lot of sense, but the distortion that gets reported by popular press makes it easy to dismiss her. What I would suggest is to go straight to the source and read her climate book. It contains her actual views and the facts they are based on, and if nothing else it will allow you to empathize with her point of view, even if you don't end up agreeing with it. If you think she's a puppet or a wacko I feel confident in saying you know nothing about her at all, and have been forming your opinions based on misrepresentations of her in the media.
GW will be solved by new technology, or not solved at all. It has to be a collective action across the world that will cause massive pain and decreased living stanards, which people aren't willing to do.
Pissing in the pot by cutting down on meat or getting an electric car are not going to make enough of a change and they will cause people to think that they have done their part.
But we will hit wall where the carbon-free alternatives are more expensive. The government will need to ban gas cars at some point, or use carbon tax to make them unaffordable. Same with carbon-free concrete, big industry, natural gas appliances, and transportation.
Also, we will need to do significant carbon capture, and that is pure cost. The government will need to pay for it with some kind of tax.
Humanity's collective impact on the environment is vast and ever-growing. While technological innovation is crucial and holds a significant potential in addressing climate change, it's also essential to reevaluate and adapt our lifestyles. Our approach to problem-solving can't solely rely on future technology; we must also integrate sustainable habits into our daily lives. Even seemingly small changes, when adopted on a global scale, can lead to considerable shifts. We must consider this a cooperative effort rather than simply an individual contribution.
I was surprised to learn that iPhones and iPads are only specified to operate between 0-35C (32-95F) ambient[1] -- even cheap consumer-grade ICs typically work up to 70C/158F. 95F/35C is a perfectly ordinary outdoor temperature during the peak of summer in America's south, and temperatures below 32F/0C are common anywhere it snows. (0C is the standard lower limit of the consumer temperature grade, however.)
I suppose cooling such a small, dense device much be difficult, and having everything pressed against the battery (with its presumably lower temperature limit) probably doesn't help either. Still, I feel like a portable electronic device ought to be able to work in places other than California.
[1] https://www.apple.com/iphone-14/specs/
Kobo eReader: 0 - 45C
Pixel 6: 0 - 35C
Macbook Pro: 10C - 35C
Pixel Buds: 0 - 35C
Garmin heart rate strap: 0 - 40C
Garmin bike computer: -20 - 60C
From talking to manufacturers I often hear "it will probably work outside this, but you'll have worse battery performance and eventually issues will arise". Another thing I hear is that, below zero, for wearable devices they will often stay at an OK temperature if they are in a pocket or beside your body.
I'm most surprised that a MacBook Pro with its active cooling doesn't have a higher max temp than a smartphone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
EDIT: Out of curiosity I also measured the temperature of my airpod at the ear canal tip - 27C.
In a warmer climate, the delta gets even less. So yeah, it's a bit surprising that wearables aren't rated for body temperature.
When I'm sitting on my South facing apartment balcony I can't use my phone which is annoying.
They don't even work in California. I bought a new Pixel last summer and a few weeks later, was running around San Jose on a day that was around 95-100F (car doesn't have working AC). I left my phone on the front passenger seat in the sun for a few minutes and was getting warnings about the device overheating, apps were running terribly, and I had issues for some weeks after.
And that's in the Bay - most of my friends live outside of it, where highs of 110F aren't uncommon.
I get what you're saying, but this is setting a very, very low bar for robustness.
"on a day that was around 95-100F" When you add solar heating that device is going to get hot and quickly. The internal temperatures of the SOC and battery will be out of range and the device will need to shut down to cool off.
Modern phones have a lot of power, generate a lot of peak heat from their SoC but has the worst possible cooling scenario - held near hit skin, covered in leather cases, etc. When you start at 35C you only have 25C left until the mentioned 70C, which components near the SoC Would quickly surpass.
Higher rating is unlikely to help much - you need less heat generated or better heat dissipation.
Even though the smartphone SoCs may dissipate around <2W of heat, to transfer that heat out of the chassis is pretty hard. This is coming from experience from working on a consumer electronics product where we have run at least 20 heat simulations on Autodesk and learnt how tough it is to dissipate out even 0.75W heat.
And here's I was surprised my s22 was only rated to 40c...
When I cooled down down my room to 25°C via A/C, everything started working again.
Wireless charging isn't an option.
And I would love to use CarPlay over a cable, but no can do with BMW.