Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on You Only Get One Shot. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to You Only Get One Shot awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of You Only Get One Shot, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding You Only Get One Shot. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of You Only Get One Shot. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of You Only Get One Shot, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on You Only Get One Shot, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around You Only Get One Shot. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of You Only Get One Shot.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about You Only Get One Shot, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of You Only Get One Shot.
Pfizer Says Its 3-Dose COVID-19 Vaccine Saw Strong Immune Response in Kids Under 5
Pfizer Says Its 3-Dose COVID-19 Vaccine Saw Strong Immune Response in Kids Under 5
For the most up-to-date news and information about the coronavirus pandemic, visit the
WHO
and
CDC
websites.
Pfizer and BioNTech's three-dose COVID-19 vaccine for children ages six months to under 5 years produced a strong immune response, the companies said on Monday.
The vaccine for younger kids has an efficacy of just over 80%, according to a preliminary analysis. The results are based on clinical trials in which children got 3-microgram doses -- one-tenth of the dose for adults -- of the COVID-19 vaccine. Following a third dose, the companies said the vaccine elicited a strong immune response with only mild to moderate side effects.
"The study suggests that a low 3-µg dose of our vaccine, carefully selected based on tolerability data, provides young children with a high level of protection against the recent COVID-19 strains," said Dr. Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, in a release. "We are preparing the relevant documents and expect completing the submission process to the FDA this week, with submissions to EMA and other regulatory agencies to follow within the coming weeks."
While the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week signed off on a booster shot of the COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, parents have been waiting for a vaccine to get authorized for this younger age group.
Pfizer initially submitted data to the Food and Drug Administration in February for emergency use authorization of its vaccine for babies, toddlers and children under age 5, but postponed the official application and authorization process to wait for additional data on a third dose. Moderna and Pfizer have both asked the FDA to authorize low-dose vaccines for the youngest age group, and the agency has a tentative schedule in June to go over data on both companies' vaccines.
Last week, the US crossed the grim milestone of 1 million deaths from COVID-19, and cases and hospitalization rates have been rising across the country. New, more contagious versions of the omicron variant are responsible. While numbers are lower than the surge this past winter, the rise threatens the relaxation of some safety measures, like dropped mask mandates.
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
S21 ultra vs s20 ultra samsung galaxy camera shootout hockey s21 ultra vs s20 ultra samsung galaxy camera shootout at wadala s21 ultra vs s20 ultra samsung galaxy camera shootout for soldiers s21 ultra vs s20 ultra samsung galaxy camera shootout lyrics samsung s21 ultra vs s20 ultra camera galaxy s21 ultra vs s20 ultra s21 ultra vs s20 note samsung s21 ultra vs s20 ultra camera samsung s21 ultra samsung galaxy s21 ultra s21 ultra price samsung s21 ultra price
S21 Ultra vs. S20 Ultra: Samsung Galaxy camera shootout
S21 Ultra vs. S20 Ultra: Samsung Galaxy camera shootout
The standout feature of last year's Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra was its camera, a five-lens setup that could shoot at a crazy 100x magnification. A year later, the Galaxy S21 Ultra is Samsung's newest flagship. It improves on its predecessor in numerous ways: A gorgeous matte back, an even more gorgeous 3,200x1,440-pixel display that lets you scroll in QHD and 120Hz for the first time, and a customary processor upgrade.
But just like last year, those looking into buying Samsung's new crown jewel are mostly doing so for the camera. Updates this year include dual telephoto lenses, 4K video60 frames per second from all rear cameras, and better zoom-stabilization software. So just how much more Ultra is the S21's photography?
Standard
It'll come as little surprise that there's minimal difference between the two cameras when you're shooting in optimal lighting conditions.
In this shot you'll see the colors on the beer can are similarly vibrant, and the same level of detail is captured. The only difference is in the aperture: The background looks a little more blurred in the S20 Ultra as compared to the S21 Ultra. I personally prefer the latter shot, but that's very much a taste thing.
What about less conducive lighting conditions? I shot these flowers under my living room light, which typically makes for some ugly yellow tinting. The S21 Ultra dealt with this lighting far better, neutralizing the yellow shade and producing a shot with better white balance. It also captured better detail on the flower itself.
One issue I found with the S20 Ultra was that, compared to the iPhone 12 Pro, it struggled with extreme close-up shots. It often couldn't focus properly, and other times colors would be overwhelming.
I recruited yet another flower for help here, and found the S21 Ultra a slight improvement. The red in the S20 Ultra shot is just completely overpowering, whereas it's bearable -- but still strong -- on the S21 Ultra. More data was shot too, as you'll see from the details on the flower's petals.
As for ultrawide-angle shots, I found the cameras to be largely comparable. The S20 Ultra sometimes suffered from blown highlights at times when the S21 Ultra wouldn't. That said, the S20 Ultra's ultrawide shots also looked more vibrant.
See how the colors pop more here on the S21 Ultra. But the processing around the building's edges results in harsher lighting.
That difference is more evident here, with that harsh sun in the top right being better handled by the S21 Ultra's ultrawide-angle sensor.
Portrait
If the S21 Ultra regresses anywhere, it's in Portrait shots. (Which are now called Portraits, as opposed to Samsung's previous "Live Focus" branding.)
In my testing, the S21 Ultra tended to cool the tone down and capture more detail. It's bokeh, which mimics the depth-of-field effects found in DSLR cameras, is more blurred and creamy. This isn't always bad: See these shots below of CNET Science Editor Jackson Ryan. I much prefer the S20 Ultra shot, as it looks softer and less artificial. But the S21 Ultra has captured more of Jackson's facial features, like his freckles, and more detail in his beard.
This is a nice change. In the past, critics (myself included) have marked down Samsung's Portraits due to their skin-smoothing software, which can result in fake, brushed Portraits.
But more often than not, I found the S21 Ultra's Portraits to be more unsightly than the S20 Ultra's. Look how artificially blue my friend Dan's skin looks here, and note the sunny glow in the S20 Ultra that's absent in the S21 Ultra. The S21 Ultra is a little sharper, but just looks flat compared to the S20 Ultra.
It's less of a problem with selfie Portraits. In the below comparison I look softer in the S20 Ultra shot, and the S21 Ultra's sharpness brings out my monobrow. You love to see it. But assuming you have less facial hair than me, this won't be an issue. Here it's a matter of taste, since the unsightly blue tint isn't as much of a problem.
Zoom
Let's move on to why we're really here. Samsung has been investing big design and marketing dollars into its phones' zoom function over the last year, and that's the case with the S21 Ultra too. Like last year's S20 Ultra, it has 100x Space Zoom. Improvements come with a 3x optical zoom, and a lock feature that makes taking pictures at high zoom much easier.
That 3x optical zoom actually makes a big difference, although it's a qualified one. As you can see, not all 3x magnifications are created equal. The S21 Ultra's 3x zoom is actually less magnified than the S20 Ultra's: These shots of my old and ill-kept Game of Thrones books were taken from the same distance at 3x zoom, yet they look far closer on the S20 Ultra. But they also look clearer and less blurred on the S21 Ultra.
Extending out to 10x zoom, the difference actually shrinks. Both phones do a crazy good job here. The below photo was taken at the standard magnification.
Now zooming in 10x, you'll quickly notice how much more dynamic the S21 Ultra's shot is. You may not be able to tell on site here, but looking at the raw files I noticed the S20 Ultra is also more grainy than the S21 Ultra. Again though, both Samsung phones do well at 10x zoom.
However, the chasm widens once again when you begin to zoom further than 10x. See that blue building in the background of this shot? Let's zoom in a big ol' 30x.
The building is adorned with artwork of an Australian kookaburra bird. Apologies for the weird angle, but taking identical shots at 30x zoom is hard! In any case, the S21 Ultra's software is working overtime here and it shows. Both are impressive -- most phones can't zoom this far -- but the S21 Ultra's shot is sharper and with better colors.
Below is another 30x comparison. You'll see that the S20 Ultra's shot is more blurry, has less contrast and captured less detail.
And finally, the ultimate flex: 100x zoom. Of all the 100x-zoom shots I took, this one exemplifies the difference the best. First, here's the scene I was working with:
Now zooming as far as both phones can go, we see both do frankly insane jobs at capturing the moon. The S21 Ultra, though, did better. It's more luminescent and impressive.
Night time
The S21 Ultra performs better at night than its predecessor, but it's not without flaws. Generally speaking, it'll capture more light in its low-light photos -- but at a cost.
This shot illuminates the issue. It was taken with Night Mode off. The S21 Ultra took the better photo, capturing more light and more detail, which you can see in the clouds and on the fencing behind the umbrella. But along with that comes some ugly noise, which is particularly bad in the top left of the photo.
Now let's turn Night Mode on. Here I can say the S21 Ultra is an unqualified winner. There are noise issues, particularly on the wall on the right of the photo, but it's worth it for the extra illumination and sharpness.
But there are times where Night Mode can overdo it. Below is a scene with minimal natural light.
With Night Mode turned on, the S21 Ultra technically does a better job at flooding the scene with light. But it goes too far, resulting in a harsh shot. The S20 Ultra's Night Mode added less light, but produced a more natural-looking photo.
Still, generally speaking the S21 Ultra was a minor improvement over its predecessor. The comparison below is illustrative of what you'll mostly find: The S21 Ultra is a bit sharper, brighter and better at night.
Small improvements
Samsung made some improvements to the S21 Ultra's video camera, too. Both can shoot video in 8K, but now the S21 Ultra can shoot 4K 60 frames-per-second video from all of its rear cameras, notably including its ultrawide angle shooter.
We'd need a whole new article -- or video rather -- to compare the video capabilities of the two phones. I'll just say in my (more limited) testing of the video capabilities, the S21 Ultra's cameras did better at night, with improved low-light autofocus and also better processing of highlights, which can get blown out on the S20 Ultra at times.
All in all, the S21 Ultra is a solid bump up from its predecessor in most photographic ways, especially zoom, though you may personally prefer the S20 Ultra's take on Portrait modes. This is particularly impressive considering the S21 Ultra ($1,200, £1,149, AU$1,849) actually launched at a lower price than the S20 Ultra ($1,400, £1,199, $1,999).
Sarah Tew/CNET
The Galaxy S21 Ultra is Samsung's flagship 2021 phone, its biggest and best of the 2021 Galaxy S21 line that was originally released in the first quarter of that year. We loved its two telephoto cameras, spectacular 6.8-inch screen and support for Samsung's S-Pen stylus (though you'll need to buy that separately). While it's comparatively heavy and lacks a MicroSD expansion slot, you can find it marked down from its original $1,200 base price.
Sarah Tew/CNET
The Galaxy S20 Ultra was Samsung's top phone until the Note 20 Ultra was released later in 2020. We liked its 5x optical zoom camera and S Pen support, but felt it was a bit too heavy and expensive compared to other models in the 2020 Galaxy S line.
You Only Have 2 Days Left to Order Your Free At-Home COVID Tests. Here's How
You Only Have 2 Days Left to Order Your Free At-Home COVID Tests. Here's How
For the most up-to-date news and information about the coronavirus pandemic, visit the
WHO
and
CDC
websites.
Time is running out to get your free at-home COVID-19 test kits because the US federal government is ending its program soon. USA Today first reported on Aug. 26 that the decision was made due to a limited supply of tests. This comes just as the fall season approaches and as students start the new school year.
Over the weekend, US Postal Service updated its page for at-home COVID tests with an announcement that says the "order for free at-home COVID-19 tests program will be suspended on Friday, September 2, 2022."
The last day to order free COVID tests is Friday, Sept. 2.
USPS/Screenshot by Peter Butler
In January, the government launched CovidTests.gov, a website that let households order four free rapid antigen COVID-19 tests shipped by the US Postal Service. The site added four more free tests in March, and then another eight more in May.
If you haven't received any tests, you can still get all 16 free tests, but you'll need to act quickly. Luckily, it only takes two minutes to order your tests. See below to find out how to get test kits, when they'll arrive and what to do if you have problems.
How to get free COVID-19 tests
You only need to provide the US Postal Service with a few bits of information to get your free test kits. You won't be asked to provide any credit or debit card details, as both the tests and the shipping are free. Here's how to get your free test kits.
1. Visit special.USPS.com/testkits. You can also get there via covidtests.gov.
2. Enter your contact details and shipping information.
3. Click Check Out Now.
4. Verify that your information is correct and select Place My Order.
All orders will be shipped via First Class Package Service.
People who can't access the website or who have trouble ordering online can call 800-232-0233 to order their free tests.
How can I track my order?
Once you place your order, you should receive a confirmation email. When your package ships, you'll receive email notifications providing you with shipping updates, including a tracking number and estimated delivery date. Note that for the third round, you'll receive two packages that'll likely arrive on different days, so look for two confirmation emails with your tracking numbers.
Once you receive it, you can either click the tracking link or copy and paste the tracking number into the Postal Service's website's tracker.
More free COVID-19 test kits are coming.
Sarah Tew/CNET
How many test kits can I get?
According to the USPS, each residential household is eligible for three rounds of free at-home rapid antigen COVID-19 tests, for a total of 16 kits.
Only one person per address will be able to place an order for the free tests, even if you have multiple people living in your home.
Can I choose which brand test I get?
No, there isn't an option to choose which brand of test you will receive. All tests are rapid antigen tests authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, like iHealth.
When will the test kits arrive?
Tests are typically sent out within seven to 12 days of an order being successfully placed and are delivered by the USPS within one to three days of shipping.
iHealth COVID-19 rapid antigen tests are supplied for free via USPS.
Angus Mordant/Getty Images
What if I haven't received my first or second batch of test kits?
The USPS says its site has had some difficulties recognizing certain residential addresses, especially apartment buildings, multifamily homes and residences connected to commercial properties.
If you have had issues placing an order, you can file a service request online or call the USPS Help Desk at 800-ASK-USPS.
Is it OK to use a test kit that was left outside?
According to the FDA, manufacturers have ensured that the tests remain stable at various temperatures, "including shipping during the summer in very hot regions and in the winter in very cold regions."
But a test may be damaged by being left outdoors in freezing temperatures or being used immediately after being brought inside from freezing temperatures.
The ideal temperature to store rapid antigen COVID-19 test kits is between 59 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit.
The FDA has warned about the effect of extreme heat on COVID tests, saying that, "long exposure to high temperatures may impact the test performance," but also recommends simply confirming the test line on the kit.
"As long as the test line[s] appear as described in the instructions, you can be confident that the test is performing as it should," the FDA site says.
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
NFTs explained: Why people spend millions of dollars on JPEGs
NFTs explained: Why people spend millions of dollars on JPEGs
Take a quick look at the image to the right. What, if anything, could convince you that image is worth $9 million?
Richerd/OpenSea
What you're looking at is an NFT, one of the first ever created. It's part of the CryptoPunks collection, a set of 10,000 NFTs released in 2017, a time when much of the world was still finding out what bitcoin is.
Most likely you've already rolled your eyes, either at the $9 million figure or at the very idea of NFTs themselves. The response to nonfungible tokens hasn't changed much since March when they first started exploding. The public at large has reflexively dismissed them as environmentally harmful scams. The bigger the sale, the more brazen the injustice.
Which brings us back to the above pixelated chap. Its owner is Richerd, an affable Canadian software developer. He started building cryptocurrency software around 2013, but eventually tired of it. After discovering NFTs earlier this year, Richerd bought CryptoPunk #6046 on March 31 for $86,000 in what he said was the biggest purchase he'd ever made in his life.
Richerd, who has over 80,000 followers on Twitter, last month claimed that his CryptoPunk was priceless to him and wasn't for sale no matter the price. The very next day his determination was tested when an offer came through for 2,500 ether, or $9.5 million. It was made not because Richerd's CryptoPunk is worth that amount -- similar NFTs now go for about $400,000 -- but rather because his bluff was very publicly being called. It was a challenge, but it was still a legitimate offer. If Richerd clicked "accept", 2,500 ether would have flowed into his wallet.
Richerd rejected the offer.
"Well, obviously, the day before I said 'I'm not selling it for any price,' so if I sell it for that price, I'd be going against my integrity," Richerd told me over a Zoom call. "On top of that, I've used this CryptoPunk as my profile pic, as my brand. Everyone knows that's me."
Not too long ago, Richerd's explanation would have sounded insane to me. How divorced from reality would someone need to be to offer eight figures on a picture that looks like a Fiverr job? How scandalously misguided would a person need to be to rebuff that offer? After I spent a few months researching and following NFTs, however, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. In fact, it makes a whole lot of sense.
There are 10,000 NFTs in the Bored Ape Yacht Club collection. Here are three examples. The middle one is owned by Jimmy Fallon.
Yuga Labs
Bitcoin millionaires
Here is one quick fact that explains why NFTs are bought for the equivalent of a CEO's salary: Bitcoin is estimated to have made over 100,000 millionaires. It's no surprise that NFTs became a phenomenon in March. That's when bitcoin hit $60,000, up over 500% from just six months prior.
When you see a headline or a tweet about some preposterous sum being spent on an NFT, it's easy to become bewildered over how absurd that purchase would be for you. What's easy to forget is that very expensive things are almost exclusively bought by very rich people -- and very rich people spend a lot on status symbols.
Take Bored Ape Yacht Club, for example. It's a collection of 10,000 ape NFTs, all with different traits that make some rarer than others. Rare ones have sold over for over a million bucks, but common variants go for around $200,000. (At the time of launch back in April, BAYC developers sold the NFTs for $190 each.) BAYC, owned by the likes of Steph Curry and Jimmy Fallon, is what you'd call a "profile pic collection." The main purpose of the images is to be used as your display photo on Discord, where most NFT business goes down, or on Twitter, Instagram or wherever else.
To recap: $200,000 minimum for a profile picture.
In isolation, that's insane. But place it on a spectrum of how wealthy people spend money, and it becomes less staggering. You can right click and save a JPEG, so why spend money on it? Well, you can buy a nice house in a safe neighborhood almost anywhere in the world for $1 million, yet celebrities regularly snap up $20 million mansions. You can find a fashionable dress for under $500, yet brands like Chanel build their business on selling ones for 20 times that amount.
Up to 100,000 people became millionaires when that green line shot skyward.
coinmarketcap.com
We accept that rich folks buy extravagant items offline. Is it so inconceivable they would buy extravagant things online, too?
"In the real world, how do people flex their wealth?" said Alex Gedevani, an analyst at cryptocurrency research firm Delphi Digital. "It can be buying cars or watches. How scalable is that versus if I buy a CryptoPunk and use it as my profile picture?"
Obviously, status symbols aren't specific to the rich. All of us indulge in some way or another, be it buying a $20,000 new car when a $7,000 used vehicle will do, or buying a $30 T-shirt when Walmart sells basics for under $5. What most status symbols have in common is that they have a specific audience in mind. The banker sporting his Rolex and the chief executive stepping into her Bentley don't care that I think either of those purchases is excessive. They have a small but powerful group of people they're trying to influence. So, too, with NFTs.
In the case of Richerd, he runs his own business, Manifold, where he helps show digital artists like Beeple how they can use blockchain technology to make art that could only exist as NFTs. Being a part of the most sought-after NFT collection helps in those circles. And when he says his brand is built on his Punk, he's not exaggerating -- a group of investors even named their organization after him.
"Anybody who owns a CryptoPunk believes certain things," Richerd explained. "Either you've been in the community for a long time so you believe in what these are, or you've paid a lot of money to get in, which shows conviction.
"I want to show my conviction. This is one of those projects that makes you put your money where your mouth is."
A bit of trouble
NFTs are polarizing. There's a small group of people who believe in the underlying technology (tokens that prove ownership of a digital good), but there are many more who regard it as a hoax. Just as the second group struggles to see any value in NFTs, the first group can sometimes be defensive about the technology's imperfections.
And make no doubt about it, there are a lot of issues with NFTs.
First is the confounding inaccessibility. There's a reason software developers tend to do well in crypto and NFT trading: Setting up blockchain wallets and other required digital apparatus is difficult. Even just buying and selling can be perilous. Send money to the wrong wallet address by accident, and it's gone forever.
Then there are the fees. Imagine you're interested in dipping your toes into nonfungible waters and you have $1,000 you're willing to lose. If you're minting a new NFT during a public sale you'll usually spend between $120 and $400. Not too bad -- until you factor in the transaction fees. Most NFTs are built on the ethereum blockchain, which is notoriously inefficient. The more people using ethereum, be it through trading altcoins or buying NFTs, the higher the fees. At a good time you'll spend about $100 per transaction, though double or triple that amount is common. Suddenly that $1,000 doesn't go very far.
This is especially troublesome for NFTs, which are infamous for causing "gas wars." It's possible for 100,000 people to buy shiba inu coins at once, since there are a quadrillion in circulation. But when 10,000 people try to buy an NFT, it results in a massive spike in transaction costs as some users outbid each other to speed up their purchase. It may only last a minute or two, but a lot of damage can be done in that time. People spending over $10,000 on a transaction fee isn't rare. People losing $1,000 on a failed transaction isn't, either.
This is what it looks like when someone spends $4,000 on a failed transaction. It's rare, but not rare enough.
Etherscan screenshot by Daniel Van Boom
Ethereum's inefficiency also contributes to the other major criticism of NFTs, the massive amount of energy they consume. Note that this is something of a semantic issue: NFTs aren't bad for the environment as much as ethereum is. Other networks, like Solana, use a fraction of the power. Ethereum developers are expected to implement an upgrade next year that will make mining it consume 1% the energy it currently does. At this moment though, while no one can say precisely how much energy ethereum consumes, we know it's a lot. (Bitcoin, despite getting all the headlines, is even less efficient than ethereum, which is why almost nothing is built on its blockchain.)
And finally, there's the fact that most people trading NFTs are doing so to make a profit. Scams are everywhere, and prices are volatile. Most of the people who create, buy and sell NFTs are ignorant or uninterested in the technology. If there is a technological leap taking place, it's likely to be obscured by the dizzying price movements.
"I'd call it a bubble," Gedvani said, "because the amount of speculators that are entering the market is outpacing genuine creators."
But a bubble can pop and leave something better in its wake. Think of Pets.com. It had a peak valuation of $290 million in February 2000 but by November of that year, as the infamous dot-com bubble began to burst, it had already closed shop. It's used as a cautionary tale for speculative trading in bubbles. But the impulse to invest in Pets.com evidently ended up being justifiable. That particular venture was misguided, but the e-commerce trend it was flicking at was legitimate. Seven-figure pixel art may not be forever, but proof of digital ownership, which is what NFTs are really about, may be.
A big 2022
Where NFTs will end up is anyone's guess -- and anyone who claims to know is probably trying to sell you something. What we do know is that the amount of people buying NFTs is almost definitely about to grow.
It's estimated that around 250,000 people trade NFTs each month on OpenSea, the biggest NFT marketplace. In the short term, CoinBase will soon open its own NFT marketplace, for which 2 million users are on the waiting list. Robinhood has similar plans.
More importantly, giant companies that already make money outside of the crypto space want in. Niantic, the company behind Pokemon Go, has just announced a game in which players can earn bitcoin. Twitter and the company formerly known as Facebook plan to integrate NFTs into their platforms, and Epic Games says it's open to doing so too. Envision a world where instead of buying skins in Fortnite, you buy an NFT for those skins that you own -- meaning you can trade it for outfits and weapons in other games, or sell it once you're done with it. (Epic said it won't integrate such a mechanic into Fortnite, but that may not stop competitors.)
Richerd reckons the flood of people soon to enter the NFT marketplace will create a broader diversity of digital products sold for different audiences. Your neighbor might not want to spend $200 -- much less $200,000 -- on a profile picture, but maybe they'll be willing to spend $10 on a one-of-a-kind skin, or on a product in Facebook's Metaverse. But though the space may change, he remains confident that CryptoPunk #6046 is safe for a while yet.
"Even if every NFT falls," he said, "CryptoPunks will be the last one."
Motorola Razr 2020 review: The iconic flip phone has done it again, this time with 5G
Motorola Razr 2020 review: The iconic flip phone has done it again, this time with 5G
The new Motorola Razr 2020 addresses most of the issues I had with the Razr (2019) that came out in February. Overall it's a better phone. The new Razr gets a slew of upgraded specs, but lacks the top of the line ones found in the Motorola Edge Plus and Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra. But neither of those phones can fold into something incredibly small.
With the Razr you're paying $1,400 (£1,399, which is about AU$2,470) for a foldable screen. And that's important to remember because there isn't wireless charging or a high refresh rate display, or a gigantic battery or IP-rated water and dust resistance, or a headphone jack or headphones or the most powerful Snapdragon processor. If you want to fold a 6.2-inch phone into something the size of a small drink coaster in 2020, you're going to pay a lot of money.
The Razr's refined foldable flip phone feels fantastic to use. With the new cameras, addition of support for 5G and all the useful enhancements to the external display, the Razr feels like a "normal" phone that can do "normal" everyday stuff with its "anything but normal" foldable build. If I were to compare the Razr to a car, it would be a fun two-seat convertible.
But not everything is rosy with this new Razr. The speaker in the chin is OK, but doesn't produce great-sounding audio at louder volumes. The glass on the back of my review unit has accumulated a few scuffs over 10 days. They're barely visible, but they're there. A case could have prevented these and Motorola will sell a nifty $50 case for the Razr.
Also, when I opened and closed my 2019 Razr review unit in February it made this weird loud squeak. For the most part, this new one didn't. I say for the most part because when I was filming the unboxing video for the Razr, I didn't hear a squeak. But when reviewing the footage, one of my video producers noticed that my mic picked up a small squeak.
Aside from the squeak (more on that below) my experience overall has been good with the new Raz. I have to give Motorola a ton of credit for all the changes and implementations they made.
As far as the price, this isn't a phone for everyone, especially with the financial hardship so many people are enduring right now. If you were seriously considering the Motorola Razr (2019) and didn't get it and you have the cash, you should consider this version. It's a refinement in nearly every way over that phone. But know that you're paying a lot of money for a phone that folds in half.
The body of the new Razr is made of aluminum and Gorilla Glass 5.
Patrick Holland/CNET
The new Razr's aluminum and Gorilla Glass 5 body feels solid
During my time with the new Razr, I used it like a regular phone. I didn't feel the need to be careful with it. I wiped the foldable screen on my jeans. I keep the phone in my pocket or in my bag.
Some of that assurance comes from its build. When you close the phone, the sides sit flush, encompassing and protecting the display. But some of that is my perception. I want to be confident that if the Razr is in a pocket with my house keys, that it won't get destroyed. That confidence and trust is huge, and I didn't feel that all-the-time when I reviewed the 2019 Razr.
The new Razr is built from aluminum and Gorilla Glass 5 and feels solid compared to the prototype feel of the February version. Also that plastic back is gone!
To reinforce the phone's robustness, Motorola invited me to visit one of their testing labs and see one of the 40 different testing machines it uses to test the Razr (wearing a mask and socially distanced, of course). I got to see a machine that folds the Razr in half to simulate years of use in just a matter of days. The idea is most people will never fold this phone enough to hit Motorola's 200,000-fold lifespan.
Read more: Motorola claims the Razr can fold 200,000 times. We get a peek at how the phone is tested
This is one of four new Motorola Razr phones on a machine that opens and closes it once every four seconds. Over the course of 10 days the phones will be folded 200,000 times.
Patrick Holland/CNET
My time with the Razr has largely been squeak-free… until Friday. I don't know if it's the humidity or what, but there's a little squeak anytime I open or close it. The only time I don't hear it is when I flick the Razr open one-handed. The squeak isn't as loud as the 2019 Razr. But when I hear it, I feel conflicted. I feel disappointed.
I asked a friend how they felt about the squeak and they said it didn't bother them. I guess when it comes to screen notches, foldable screen creases and now foldable phone squeaks, some of you will get used to these things while others will be wildly annoyed.
I should add that the squeak comes from the hinge mechanism, but doesn't indicate any mechanical problems.
Quick View display separates the Razr from the Galaxy Z Flip 5G
Perhaps my favorite feature is the Quick View display which got a lot more useful with the new Razr. Fundamentally this is where the Razr and the Galaxy Z Flip couldn't be more different. There are basically three modes to the outside display: The first is a Peek Display mode that lets you see notifications just by pressing and holding on an icon. The next is like a Peek Display plus mode where you can press and hold an icon, then swipe up to reveal multiple notifications and respond to them. The keyboard basically takes up the entire screen, but after a few uses I got better at typing on it.
But it's the third mode -- let's call it mini-Android mode -- where the true power of the Quick View display gets unleashed. When the Razr is closed and unlocked, you can swipe down to get to the control panel, swipe up to see something similar to the notification shade, swipe to the left to go to the camera and swipe right to see a grid of apps and swipe to the right again, to see contact favorites.
The Quick View display on the Razr is officially the smallest screen I've ever played PUBG Mobile on.
Patrick Holland/CNET
The phone can curate a list of apps that work well on the smaller external screen. Apps like Gmail, YouTube and Messages can be used complete with a mini keyboard. Also, you can go back and forth between the Quick View display and the interior display and pick right up where you were at.
You can also do what I did and go into the Manage apps setting and turn on unlimited which allowed me to try pretty much any app I wanted on the Quick View display. So I decided to try PUBG Mobile. I could barely make out the controls, but it is possible to play PUBG on the Quick View display. I also played Alto's Odyssey and Super Mario Run. Not every app is optimized for that small of a display. But this iteration of the Quick View display marks an enormous step in the right direction for Motorola.
Razr has a new 48-megapixel main camera
Then there are the cameras both of which got a solid upgrade. The selfie camera atop the internal display is much better and works great for Zoom meetings and taking selfies. Though video recording on the selfie camera does top out at 1080p.
The exterior camera has 48-megapixels and uses pixel-binning to create good 12-megapixel photos. This camera is much better than the 2019 Razr. And thanks to the optical image stabilization and a time-of-flight sensor, I got an acceptable rate of in-focus and sharp photos.
The HDR mode works rather well without it being too heavy-handed. It kept the faded blue of the pickup just right.
Patrick Holland/CNET
This was taken with the digital zoom at 2x. It's remarkable the detail it was able to capture. It also shows off the lens' natural bokeh.
Patrick Holland/CNET
Here's another photo where the Razr went into HDR mode.
Patrick Holland/CNET
This is a selfie I took with the exterior 48-megapixel camera with the phone closed.
Patrick Holland/CNET
But the Razr's cameras are not on the same level as the iPhone 11 or Google Pixel 4A. Unless Motorola added a Note 20 Ultra-sized camera bump onto the Razr (please don't do that) there is only such room for a sensor and lens inside something this small.
Low-light and zoomed in photos are soft and look like a painting because of noise reduction. There is a Night Vision mode that can help, but I find it works best in medium-to-low lighting versus situations where it's dark.
Here is a 5x digital zoom of the John Hancock building off in the distance. The details are definitely soft.
Patrick Holland/CNET
This photo was taken in the regular photo mode.
Patrick Holland/CNET
This photo was taken with Night Vision. This is the best Night Vision photo I took with the Razr. That said, the sky looks painted on.
Patrick Holland/CNET
The main camera also shoots 4K video and the quality is decent. Video definitely doesn't have the same dynamic range as photos and suffers from image noise and artifacts. But I'm happy with the clips I was able to record. Check some out video clips I shot below:
OK battery life, sub-6 5G and Snapdragon 765G
Motorola claims a benefit of using the Quick View display more is it doesn't tax battery life as bad as using the main display. And that's good news. In my use, the new Razr gets me barely through a day. I typically find myself topping off at dinner time. And that's while I'm connected to 5G. I'm getting about 7 hours, 30 minutes of screen-on time and in a test with continuous video playback on Airplane mode the Razr lasted 15 hours, 53 minutes, that's 1 hour, 50 minutes more than the 2019 Razr lasted in the same test. And that's 53 minutes more than the Galaxy Z Flip.
The new Razr has a larger battery than the 2019 Razr and some of that is to compensate for use on 5G, which can eat up battery life. The Razr can work on sub-6 flavors of 5G like on AT&T and T-Mobile. I've been testing this Razr on T-Mobile's 5G here in Chicago. Sometimes I get speeds over 100Mbps for downloads (that's outdoors) and other times I get speeds that are 4.55Mbps (that's also outdoors). Both of those results were well within the 5G coverage on T-Mobile's map and speaks more to T-Mobile's 5G network than it does the phone.
Powering all this is 8GB of RAM and a Snapdragon 765G processor. There will be some who will write the new Razr off because it doesn't have a Snapdragon 865 processor. But as we've seen in other Android phones this year, the 765G is a solid processor. In the Razr, it handled gaming, videos, photo edits, multitasking really well. And in benchmark tests, the Razr scored right on par with the LG Velvet.
3DMark Slingshot Unlimited
Motorola Razr (2020)
Motorola Razr (2019)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Note:
Longer bars indicate better performance
Geekbench v.5.0 single-core
Note:
Longer bars indicate better performance
Geekbench v.5.0 multicore
Motorola Razr (2020)
Motorola Razr (2019)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Note:
Longer bars indicate better performance
Even with all these improvements, it's hard to recommend a $1,400 especially one that is still very much a concept waiting to live up to its hype in the real world. The same can be said about the Galaxy Z Flip 5G. That said, I'm excited for Motorola and hope they make as big a step forward with the next Razr as the company did with this one.
Motorola Razr (2020) specs verus Motorola Razr (2019), Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2
