The 115F Heat Is Killing Phones in Sardinia
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
These 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.
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.
Phones won't charge, apps crash, the UV destroys things at a rapid rate.
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.
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.