There’s a lot of rebrands of these phones. If you get a rugged phone from an unknown brand it’s very possible it’s an Oukitel rebrand.
I’ve had a few but I mostly take one that doesn’t look too rugged. Enjoyed every one of them. They are also pretty easy to repair. (If you are able to remove the screen)
It’s an Oukitel.
It’s not your tax dollars silly Russian.
Battery usage:
That’s what I currently have with close to no usage. With usage it’s around 10 days in total. When using GPS it depends.
It feels like yesterday some guy was arguing against me here on Lemmy about my personal choice of wanting a longer battery life.
WELL LOOK AT ME NOW BRO
Ah yes, destroy the people around you in the name of security, using humans you don’t even care about.
Who’s a good little shill? You are! You little shilly whilly.
:)
I’m not the one being an asshole to other people online though.
Did I say that?
I provided a list of alternatives showing that it’s not too important to have a lot of translators.
Do you think you’re cool?
Yes but all of that is useless. What are those tactics, doctrine and operations? In the end there is no real difference between soldiers.
Interpretation services might be the only good thing, but even that doesn’t require actual soldiers to be sent. Little translated phrase books, mobile apps, a few translators deeper in their own territory, etc. All of that makes it so South Korea doesn’t have to meddle. It’s like if the US would go to war with Canada and France joins in because they could help translate the french that is spoken in some parts of Canada.
So my point still stands, South Korea doesn’t really help the military with anything but the manpower itself. And this just means South Korea is there to fight North Korea. Which I still think is a questionable move for them.
What would this expertise look like?
Very weird choice. They don’t have to do this at all.
And Ukraine doesn’t need their intelligence officers either. Because it’s not like NK has some sort of capable force.
The EU isn’t just economic.
And you can literally say only half the people want it, which doesn’t make sense for such big decisions. “Most” people should want it, but I wouldn’t call this “most people” in the practical sense.
Mhm. For some votes I’d rather see a 65-75% requirement. Not every vote should be 50%, especially on a scale like this.
Some articles claimed it was mostly meant symbolic.
That was a retaliation for the alleged drone.
This article is old news.
Thanks. I read all of these points and have come to a conclusion. It’s poop.