Cool, a large capacity battery is nice for many things, like taking pictures or recording movies or gaming, or even just to have some buffer if you suddenly discover it only has 20% left.
And finally a bigger battery last longer, because it requires fewer full recharge equivalents. So if the expected lifespan of a 5000 mAh battery is 5 years, the 7000 mAh can last 7 years!!
The cries for bigger batteries on regular phones have been very loud for a while.
Yes, and it’s absolutely ridiculous it didn’t improve faster since battery technologies and prices have improved a lot the past years.
Next, bring back all the ports we used to have
Absolutely, I’m frigging using my 6 year old Moto for video/audio-books, because it has the 3½" Jack, and the new one doesn’t.
Hell, what does almost everyone do with these premium glass phones? Put a synthetic cover in it so you can grip it and give it some drop protection.
Exactly, glass backs are a bad joke.
Goddam the number of times I was downvoted for complaining that premium phones only had 5000 mAh, when I needed to replace my old Motorola P9 Power that had 6000 mAh.
With comments on how it would make the phones bigger and heavier, when there clearly were improved battery technologies available that could avoid that.
Obviously a premium phone can have better batteries than a 3 year old (at the time) cheap ass $250 phone.
At least many increased battery capacities a bit last generation, but today 7000-8000 mAh should be easy, without adding bulk or weight compared to phones 2 years ago.
Also the complaint is weird when people are OK with the extra bulk and weight from using glass back cover, on top of making the phone more fragile compared to a nice synthetic.
Anyways thanks to Xiaomi for breaking the trend of non development on battery capacities for real. 👍
Okay. I have that. Now what?
Then you have your evidence, and your previous post is nonsensical.
You can’t prove a negative, what you should look for is evidence that it works, without such evidence, there is no reason to believe it does.
Having all my data stored with proprietary services is so nice, I don’t have to worry about anything.
/S
But that’s actually how the average idiot think.
Yes I found out I was wrong, and I thought I had edited most of the wrong posts claiming deepseek is open source.
You are right it isn’t, despite articles claiming it is.
That actually made me laugh out loud. 👍 🤣
Oh I didn’t detect any snarkiness, just you being to the point, which is a thing I appreciate.
But I’m often considered impolite. I think it’s a culture thing.
But I must admit I am annoyed by you contradicting me, but it’s even worse that you were right.
I find that generally offensive.
So I’ll go sulk in corner for a few minutes. 😜 😋 🤣
The (claimed) source:
https://github.com/deepseek-ai
Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I’m NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these “weights” is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.
I apologize.
your changing the definition of open source software.
https://techwireasia.com/2025/07/china-open-source-ai-models-global-rankings/
The tide has turned. With the December 2024 launch of DeepSeek’s free-for-all V3 large language model (LLM) and the January 2025 release of DeepSeek’s R1 (the AI reasoning model that rivals the capabilities of OpenAI’s O1), the open-source movement started by Chinese firms has sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
And:
DeepSeek, adopting an open-source approach was an effective strategy for catching up, as it allowed them to use contributions from a broader community of developers.”
I’ve read similar descriptions in other articles, seems your claim is false.
EDIT PS:
Turns out on further investigation that Deepseek is NOT open source, there is NO access to the source code for Deepseek. Only the weights as others have rightfully claimed.
OpenAI and such are working overtime to lock customers in.
Of course they are, I just thought they hadn’t figured out how yet. 🤥
Oracle doesn’t need a bailout, they are loaded, and can afford this loss. But of course an investment not being as profitable as they promised means the stock goes down. It’s not like the company is anywhere near being in trouble.
The dataset is massive and impractical to share, and a dataset may include bias and conditions for use, and the dataset is a completely separate thing from the code. You would always want to use a dataset that fit your needs. From known sources. It’s easy to collect data. Programming a good AI algorithm not so much.
Saying a model isn’t open source because collected data isn’t included is like saying a music player isn’t open source, because it doesn’t include any music.
EDIT!!!
TheGrandNagus is however right about the source code missing, investigating further, the actual source code is not available. and the point about OSI (Open Source Initiative) is valid, because OSI originally coined the term and defined the meaning of Open Source, so their description is per definition the only correct one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Open source as a term emerged in the late 1990s by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term “free software” and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[14] In addition, the ambiguity of the term “free software” was seen as discouraging business adoption.[15][16] However, the ambiguity of the word “free” exists primarily in English as it can refer to cost. The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Peterson suggested “open source” at a meeting[17] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape’s announcement in January 1998 of a source code release for Navigator.[18] Linus Torvalds gave his support the following day
Your ignorance is not a valid point.
https://techwireasia.com/2025/07/china-open-source-ai-models-global-rankings/
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman declared a “code red” last week as the upstart faces greater rivalry from Google, threatening its ability to monetize its AI products and meet its ambitious revenue targets.
Interesting that even Sam Altman is worried now!
AFAIK there are also problems that Chinese companies have their own tool chain, and are releasing high level truly open source solutions for AI.
Seems to me a problem for the sky high profits could be that it is hard to make AI lock in, like is popular with much software and cloud services. But with AI you can use whatever tool is best value, and switch to the competition whenever you want.
It’s nice that it will probably be impossible for 1 company to monopolize AI, like Microsoft did with operating systems for decades.
UK also isn’t in the EU, and lack of protection of privacy was a serious problem when they were.
I wouldn’t be surprised. Same on phones tablets laptops etc.
Apparently not, because many people buy glass back phones that are both thicker and heavier than a good synthetic, Then they add a cover to protect the back, making the phone even bulkier.
The smartphone market is goddam moronic in some aspects IMO. It all started when idiotic reviewers claimed the Galaxy S2 that was superior to the iPhone at the time, didn’t have the same “premium” feel of the iPhone. In part because it was lighter!!!
Also the Galaxy was way way more durable, the iPhone cracked if you looked at it wrong. So there is no doubt which phone was made from the better materials as in the more functional ones.
But after that “premium” phones were basically all glass despite all the downsides, like adding thickness and weight, and being way less durable, and also glass being more slippery so risk of dropping it is increased too. Unless of course you use a cover, which then again makes the glass back utterly pointless.
There is simply no way glass is a suitable material for the back of a phone. Except moronic reviewers continue to claim so, and phone makers keep making high end phones almost exclusively with glass back.