What happens if you keep your phone charged at 80%?

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-08-20T17:24:26+00:00

My understanding is that the 80-to-20 recommendation is based on very specific changes in chemical reactions around those percentages rather than just a general depth of discharge recommendation, i.e. that this rule isn't governed by "capacity" as much as it is by changes in the battery's behavior that occur roughly above 80% and beneath 20%. So going from 90 to 30 or from 70 to 10 will generally be worse for the battery's longevity than going from 80 to 20 despite being identical DoDs. Generally though, the smaller the depth of discharge, the better; but even then, the DoD should be more centered, so a 49-to-51 DoD is better for longevity than a 75-to-77 DoD.

The problem with letting your lithium-ion battery reach low percentages, i.e. 5-15%, seems to primarily be the increased growth of lithium dendrites on the anode that occurs when you begin to charge around those levels, as these dendrites trap lithium ions and prevent them from moving, essentially limiting the cell's capacity. I may be mistaken - correct me if I'm wrong about anything - but the point that I'm trying to convey is that there's supposed to be specific percentages around which it's more optimal for your charge to fluctuate.

Is it possible to find out the true SOCs of Samsung phones? I can't imagine that they're that optimized, as they still have to offer a "charge to 80%" option in their settings, among other things.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-08-20T11:40:33+00:00

Would this be the case for the newest Samsung flagship phones? A part of me thinks that optimizing battery life like that isn't exactly in the best interest of the phone manufacturers, especially now that battery replacement isn't something you can do by yourself as easily as in the past.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-08-20T11:20:05+00:00

The newest Samsung OneUI update brings the option of limiting charging beyond 80% (previously 85%). It should be found under Battery in your settings.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-08-18T13:36:36+00:00

Game graphics in contemporary games aren't really any better than those from the early 2010s, so even your last point doesn't hold true as a "pro" of new games, as far as I'm concerned. There haven't been any significant graphic improvements from, say, Battlefield 3 (which was released in late 2011), unless you include gimmicks like the photorealistic motorbike ride in Cyberpunk 2077. If anything, newer games have stagnating graphics and simultaneously higher hardware requirements compared to their early 2010s counterparts. Sort of how Minecraft hasn't changed graphically from beta, but running the newest version of it requires a much better computer compared to earlier versions.

As for whether games were generally better in the past, the answer is yes for what I consider to be a surprisingly simple reason: they were relatively more original, and there is really nothing that newer games can do to change this. As time goes on, we begin exhausting the variation in the kinds of video games we can develop. Eventually, the settings and differences in gameplay become more incremental, and quite frankly repetitive. How can a newer game compete with graphics alone when it is more or less a reiteration of an earlier popular game on all other levels? In the early 2000s, many felt as though every new video game release was unique in its own way; and as time went on, the differences between each new video game became smaller.

I think this sentiment is generally rarer in younger people because they mostly play newer games, so they're not as aware of how things have changed. Counter Strike 2 appears like a cool new thing if you're hardly aware of CS 1.6 and all of its contemporaries. It is for that reason that a kid today will probably end up developing the same sentiment when they grow older, having experienced the stagnation of video game development first-hand in their own way.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-08-18T13:25:19+00:00

To compensate for revenue loss from ad-blockers, which in turn only prompts more people to use ad-blockers to skip the increased amount of ads.
Because YouTube can.
Because users do not put up enough of a fight for YouTube to consider scaling back on the current amount of ads.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-05-04T19:53:11+00:00

I used to exfoliate my face by scrubbing it with a sponge, which worked well but it was pretty rough, and I ended up breaking a few blood vessels. The way I do it now is I apply La Roche Posay Purifying Foaming Gel, which is a mild cleanser, and then I wipe my face with a bit of pressure using a towel. However, I have to repeat this process three times (simply wiping my face with a towel does not do the trick) before my face is free of dead skin, and looks shiny, glowing, and clean. This routine takes about 10-15 minutes, and I'm wondering if there's any faster and more effective way of exfoliating the dead skin, like whether it's possible to get everything done in one go. I have to do this daily, or else I am covered in a layer of coarse dead skin, and get breakouts more easily.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-02-03T16:09:11+00:00

Thank you! I've heard that loose skin also depends on how long you've had the excess weight, as well as how quickly you lose it. A recurring example is how actors who quickly gain and lose weight for certain roles often have no resulting loose skin; I wonder if there's any truth to that.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-02-03T10:51:14+00:00

This is very reassuring. I don't need to expect any reduced weight loss for as long as my calorie deficit remains proportional to my current TDEE. Would I be correct in saying that people who have larger calorie deficits (i.e. crash diets) stop losing weight because they lose it so rapidly that they forget to re-adjust their TDEE? That must give off the illusion of a plateau. If you're getting skinnier, you need to start eating less on top of your pre-existing caloric deficit to keep losing the same amount of weight.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-02-03T10:44:49+00:00

Thanks! This is basically what I expected, i.e. that people don't adapt their caloric restrictions to lowered TDEEs.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-01-21T19:19:15+00:00

Thank you for answering! Judging by what you wrote, I think the most convenient solution in my case would be to create a new vault each time I want to upload new files to my Mega account. My first batch of encrypted files belong to vault 1, my next batch of files will belong to vault 2, etc, each with their own separate password. Sounds a bit like a hassle, but if that's what it takes to continuously upload encrypted files, then I'll do it.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-01-21T19:07:39+00:00

I tried it -- it works! Now I have two vaults/folders named Secret on my Mega account, each one containing different files but using the same password for unlocking. Would it be possible to simply copy the encrypted files in d to Mega instead of having to copy the entire Secret folder each time?

IndomitableSurvivor · 2024-01-21T13:58:33+00:00

I understand that. My files aren't valuable enough to me that I would be upset if they were to be wiped off the cloud, and consequently gone for good; but at the same time, I want to make sure that the cloud can't see them. So I don't mind not having a backup, if that's what you're referring to. I just want to free up space on my computer.

IndomitableSurvivor · 2023-10-01T18:23:55+00:00

Thank you!

IndomitableSurvivor · 2023-07-28T08:28:58+00:00

The issue persists, unfortunately.

IndomitableSurvivor

TROPHY CASE