5 ms·
If given that most people charge their phone once a day and doesn't actually need more battery efficiency, and battery efficiency is the only benefit, are ther
by hanspeter 7y ago
If given that most people charge their phone once a day and doesn't actually need more battery efficiency, and battery efficiency is the only benefit, are there then no actual benefit from 5G?
- arcticbull 7y agoUnless one day you could charge your phone once every two days? Or once a week! Like back in the day of the 3310, which had 22 hours of talk time and 31 days of standby. Or you could make the phone smaller/lighter/faster with the extra efficiency. I'm having trouble believing someone here on HN is arguing against improving technology. I sometimes forget to plug my phone in, maybe after traveling, maybe after drinking haha. I'm already super glad my phone will make it through a second day. Back in the iPhone 3G days? Not so much.
- thatcat 7y agoSmaller/lighter/faster phones and battery banks are already available, without 5g. Why do you need 5g specifically? It's value has to exceed the value it destroys. Not all tech developments are net improvements.
- arcticbull 7y agoBecause they'll be even smaller/lighter/faster. That's what efficiency gets you. 5G is more efficient. There's really nothing else to say.
- jackvalentine 7y agoSo is it worth rolling out globally a very expensive new network which will cause negative externalities for that?
- sah2ed 7y agoThat depends on whether the expected benefits greatly exceeds the costs of the new network and can offset the supposed negative externalities. expected benefits >> costs + supposed negative externalities
- thatcat 7y agoYou could just as easily have switched those words and that would make just as much sense. supposed benefits << cost and expected negitive externalities
- jackvalentine 7y agoAnd that is why everyone is asking the question, rather than blindly accepting 5G as a desirable thing.
- Junk_Collector 7y agoThis all seems kind of funny to me because these are almost the exact same arguments on why power lines are bad. They kill trees, they kill bugs, they cause kids to be hyper, they cause kids to be depressed, they cause cancer, they misalign the resonant frequency of your brain. A hundred years later I still hear the same arguments but never once has anything borne out. Can I get an argument against the 5G standard that doesn't amount to, "This may cause harm through an unknowable secondary mechanism despite roughly 100 years of evidence that it is safe."
- thatcat 7y agoInfrastructure is intrusive and imposes problems on the poorest people and wildlife who are forced to live near it, I'm not sure why you find that funny. The difference is people need power, not 5g. If you don't need it then why would you do it? There is no need for an argument to not waste money on useless infrastructure. E.g. Why not build only 4 lane highways instead of a side streets? Because it's unnecessary. The burden is on you to justify the expense and I don't see any clear justifications as to how this is in anyone's best interest outside of the telcos and <5% of users.
- thatcat 7y agoEveryone buying new phones and changing the infrastructure for marginal gains sounds super efficient.
- arcticbull 7y agoThat will happen anyways.