TL;DW: Fast charging over 2 years only degraded the battery an extra 0.5%, even on extremely fast charging Android phones using 120W.
And with that, hopefully we can put this argument to rest.
TL;DW: Fast charging over 2 years only degraded the battery an extra 0.5%, even on extremely fast charging Android phones using 120W.
And with that, hopefully we can put this argument to rest.
I personally prefer a proper peer reviewed study over amateur YT slop
I have no skin in the game but I have worked professionally as both an academic scientist and a data scientist in the private sector and I can tell you that peer review is great but a lot of legitimate research is done outside the bounds of academic journals. It is entirely possible for amateurs to do real science.
If the effect size is large enough, you dont actually need to be that rigorous about it. No one needed to do a study on whether there was a direct correlation between adverse medical outcomes and gunshot wounds to the head.
I personally know don’t trust the little (probably superficial) insights I have into the topic enough to be able to gauge this; neither do I have the energy to put into discerning slop creators doing it for clickbait with some backyard engineering or genuinely correct amateurs.
I like to outsource that to proper channels, I understand that it’s probably not 100% fair every single time, but as I said, I have neither time nor energy to judge it properly myself
Person: offers you an apple
You: “Personally, I prefer organic, homemade apple pie! Not APPLE SLOP!”
Sorry, but it’s more like a crab apple.
It looks like an apple, it’s presented like an apple, it’s advertised like an apple because that is what makes the YouTuber money. But scientific methods and standards exist for a reason. It’s very easy to produce bad data and especially easy to extract bad conclusions from data if you have an incentive to do so (such as a fan base who might engage with the video less if the conclusions were against their expectations)
There’s a chance that this guy’s conclusions reflect what a proper study might have found, but it’s just too hard to tell if it’s a crab apple or not it’s essentially probably a little better than chance.
Exactly, when it comes to highly complex chemical and electrical engineering and physics (as is the case with Smartphones and their lithium-ion batteries), I will take it as an inditcator if it comes from well-established testers with professional equipment like GN (Gamers Nexus) or other established technical journals when talking outside of the video world, but will not accept it as a general and genuine technical (!) insight until it has gone through the due process of scientific publishing and peer review…
Even then I prefer meta-studies, since they reduce biases and general inaccuracies.