Comment on Is Fast Charging Killing the Battery? A 2-Year Test on 40 Phones

qweertz@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  If you have a problem with it, tell us why.

  source

  • qweertz@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I personally prefer a proper peer reviewed study over amateur YT slop

    source

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Person: offers you an apple

      You: “Personally, I prefer organic, homemade apple pie! Not APPLE SLOP!”

      source

      • Donkter@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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.

        source
    • frustrated@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source