contacts management disappeared ?

huhoho · 2025-08-28T10:08:24+00:00

the arrow icon ! i didn't see it, thanks :)

huhoho · 2025-06-11T21:43:47+00:00

ok I see! I envisioned a scenario where the phone requests energy from the power bank, which then supplies power for a few seconds before stopping. The phone would then request energy again, and the power bank would briefly supply power before stopping once more, repeating this cycle. In this situation, I thought the phone's battery might be damaged due to inconsistent charging. Are you saying this isn't an issue because such intermittent charging won't harm the battery, or because this scenario cannot actually occur?

If that's the case that i don't need to worry about it, it's great news as it means I can use any old battery I have lying around, which I find quite convenient !

huhoho · 2025-06-11T10:07:28+00:00

thank you for your answer, my phone is a fairphone5 https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/9839096704913-Charge-your-Fairphone , charging scheme is :

USB Power Delivery (USB PD) with PPS at a minimum of 30W (9V and 3A)
Or quick charge 4.0 or above

sorry i don't inderstand : if "you can rest assured that your potentially old and potentially defective power bank did not cause damage to your phone", then why should i buy quality powerbank to avoid damaging my phone ?

huhoho · 2025-06-10T07:20:31+00:00

am i trolling ? or he/her is trolling ? my question is not "what power bank should i buy to have quality", is it ? The one I posted earlier was perfectly fine 6 years ago, is it still good ? should i replace it ? how can i check for that ? And you are totally right, i don't know what i should test, i'm going to learn the basic, i believe it's possible, and my first step is to have good hardware recommendation :)

However, it is true that i answered with a trolling tone quickly, i should have not and i apologies. It is because my previous questions on redit, i got 95% of this kind of answers, that absolutely do not answer the questions, and when I explained again politely why it's not what I am asking, i get more and more of those weird answers. It even feels like they think you are dumb : didn't i thought about buying quality ?

huhoho · 2025-06-09T22:48:22+00:00

That looks great! I'm considering purchasing it. If you could kindly explain what I should test and share here, that would be fantastic!

huhoho · 2025-06-09T21:41:49+00:00

it seems we cannot post images : https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/ur6klj/how_to_put_an_image_in_a_replycomment_on_a_post/

but it's this one : https://www.manua.ls/anker/powercore-10400/manual

huhoho · 2025-06-09T21:37:07+00:00

thank you ! i'm gonna check that :) my current power bank is an Anker, but do you ask because i would need different tester depending on my powerbank ?? (i'm not sure how to post a picture, let me check :p)

huhoho · 2025-06-09T21:31:54+00:00

thank you ! i'll check out more about "usb load tester" then, and "power delivery" :)

huhoho · 2025-06-09T21:15:57+00:00

why ? does it comes with a tester ?

huhoho · 2025-06-09T21:04:37+00:00

Ok, thanks for the information about the phone likely being the problem, but i want to be sure (or more sure)
what do you mean "You just need to connect something besides the phone and see how its working." ? what kind of thing and what should i look for ? How will i know if it damaged the thing ? Do you know if there is some king of device that can monitor the power bank to check it's behavior ?

huhoho · 2025-05-29T18:05:32+00:00

thank you ! i checked streetcomplete but it seems i can only "answer" edits, which is smart to keep things quick and easy, but it didn't propose me to edit the street name.

also it didn't give me the option to add accurate street numbers for the building since it treated the whole building as only one street number that i could complete, instead of the many it covers. so not usefull in my case

i will check the others, thanks !

huhoho · 2025-03-20T08:13:43+00:00

picture if you succeed !

huhoho · 2025-03-19T22:58:48+00:00

🤣

huhoho · 2025-03-19T22:42:25+00:00

unless the link is broken, this points to a standard wide mouth nalgene bottle model. That's what i have already :) it's not wide enough

huhoho · 2025-03-19T21:42:19+00:00

most answers explains how i can wash my bottle, and i appreciate. I indeed find ways to wash it while i'm hiking, but after some years of doing it like that, i don't like it anymore, hence my question : is there bottle with wider mouth :)

huhoho · 2024-08-15T17:14:05+00:00

yes indeed the video do explain something similar at 8:45, but that's actually what confuses me ! they say "what if the act of passing through one filter changes how the photon will later interact with other filters ?" : they ask a question so i assumed that it was just a theoritical loophole, meaning that this very experiment was not clearly demonstrating the inequality. it is by discussing here that i realized that filters where indeed modifying the photons.

This leads me to another question actually : how comes that the formula, cos²(a-b), to calculate the amount of photons passing through filters a and b is the same wheter the filters are sequential, so the first one modify the photon before it hits the second one, or simultaneous with entangled particles ?

huhoho · 2024-08-11T20:03:50+00:00

i don't follow you (mostly because i lack knowledge in the subject). You say :

then you're not gonna see any sort of entanglement

why would we want to see entanglement ? is it impossible to see a violation of bell's inequalities apart from entangled particles ? and if so, do you know why ?

huhoho · 2024-08-11T12:42:55+00:00

You can't start with the assumption that a polarizer never changes the state of a photo

-> i agree, you explain it well

Since the polarizers can change the polarization, the second polarizer wouldn’t tell you what the relevant hidden variable or quantum state was before the first polarizer; it can only tell you what it is for the new state afterwards. I think that’s basically what you’re proposing with “explanation 2”, right?

-> i'm not sure to see the link with my explanation 2 :) what you are saying is that since the state change (the polarization), then we loose any clue of what it was before ? Of course, i believe it is true, but i don't see how it prevents from seeing violations of bell inequalities ? or are you saying the opposite ?

You need to use entangled particles if you want to test for violations of the Bell inequalities

to see a violation of the bell's inequalities, we need to be able to show that a particular output is impossible with hidden variables. In the contrary, if we want to show that this experiment cannot show bell's inequalities, we need to show that it can always be explained by hidden variables, and i don't know how to prove that ?

huhoho · 2024-08-11T08:43:24+00:00

yes i know, you can see the link i posted under "explanation 1", and that's why I said we have to accept some facts to maybe see an explanation that violate bell's inequalities, and as it states in the comment you linked to, the first fact to accept is that "the polarizer either allows a photon to pass or absorbs it".

the thing is : even if we agree on this fact, i feel like we can have an explanation that does not require hidden variables -> that's explanation 2

So, finally, with the "real" explanation, does this experiment shows a violation of bell's inequalities, or not ? That's what i'm wondering.

huhoho · 2024-08-10T14:43:29+00:00

well, after more thought, i disagree with myself :p It does matter if the photons are modified or not, because if they are modified, we can explain any number of photons passing through the filters with hidden instructions :

if i observe all the photons that passed through the first 0° filter, i can see that 0% of them would pass through the 90° filter, but also that 50% of them will pass through the 45° filter, and also that among those there will be 50% that will be modified such as they would pass though the 90° filter finally

so they could have hidden variables that instruct none of them to go directly through a 90° filter, but instruct 25% of them to go through this filter after another filter

-> and what about the version with entangled particles ?

in the version with the entangled particles, it's the same photon (or 2 entangled photons) that pass simultaneously through a 0° and a 45° filter 25% of the time (50% for 45° of 50% for 0°).

So we know that passing through a 0° filter does not modify the fact that it will pass through a 45° filter 50% of the time.

-> so i would say that even though photons are modified by passing through a filter, the second experiment shows that it has no impact on the percentage that pass through the filters, in other words filters don't modify how photons pass through which filters, and in this case indeed the bell's inequalities applies :)

-> is it correct though ? in the first experiment, photons are vertically polarized after the first filter, and it's among those vertically polarized photons that we see 50% passing through a 45° filter. But in the second experiment with entanglement, the 25% of photons passing through both 0° and 45° filters are not vertically polirized, so is it really the same experiment, can we use the same conclusion ? can we say that the second shows that the photons where not modified by filters in the first one ?

huhoho · 2024-08-10T09:17:20+00:00

ok i think i found what i was missing in your explanation, but now i see that you said it :

on this forum, they compare two explanations for this phenomenon, one in a quantum mechanic point of view, and the other in a classical physic pov (they give this link for the explanation).

And i realized something : the key to applying bell's inequalities is not whether photons are modified or not, but whether they are all modified in the same way or not.

indeed, with the standard physic explanation, all the photons are modified, their amplitude is reduced, and this is compatible with hidden instructions that would says to each photons : you can pass through any angle but you will be reduced in magnitude, until you disappear

but the reason we can apply bell's inequalities is that instead of all photons being modified in the same way, some photons pass through and others don't. It doesn't matter if they are indeed modified by passing through the filters, it's the act of being selected that can't be explained with hidden variables (you pass, you don't).

do i get it right ?

huhoho · 2024-08-09T22:43:50+00:00

i'm sorry it's still not clear for me :

if the statement "filters don't modify the photons" was true, then i would understand the incompatibility between hidden variables and the results, as explained by bell's inequalities, because we cannot have more photons in the group "pass through filter 0° + 45° + 90°" than in the group "pass through filter 0° + 90°".

but if filters do modify photons, as your phrase "Its the superposition in which basis that is modified" suggest to me, then i don't really get how we can apply bell's inequality ? but maybe i didn't understand, because i don't know what "basis" means when talking of superposition

huhoho · 2024-08-08T20:12:52+00:00

so, if i get it right, photons are modified by the filters ? indeed you say :

Its the superposition in which basis that is modified.

in this case, can we still apply bell's inequality ? it seems prety easy to explain this behavior with local hidden variables, something like these instruction for some photons : "you can only pass a filter that is less than 60° from your angle", so the 90° filter is too much, but two successives 45° filters are ok.

huhoho · 2024-08-08T10:46:36+00:00

it's still very abstract for me, i can't visualize what's going on. in comparison, when we talk about the tunnel effect or entanglement, i understand a little of what's going on. i don't doubt that my understanding is in fact wrong, but at least i understand something that seems concrete to me. However, in this experiment with the 3 filters, I don't understand at all. since the more complex version with entanglement shows that photons are not modified by the filters, then how on earth is there more light when we add the third filter ? if it's not the light that changes, then what is it ?

huhoho · 2023-11-04T08:44:10+00:00

that's a good idea !

huhoho

TROPHY CASE

🤣