let's contrast the sensibly designed device with the csdvrx designed device

on the sensibly designed device, say i'm answering an email. i look at the screen, ponder for 30 seconds, scroll down, ponder for 30 seconds, and hit reply. redrawing the screen took, perhaps, a million clock cycles each time, so it required powering up a 240 megahertz esp32 for 2 milliseconds. so i've consumed 6 milliseconds of cpu, 0.6 millijoules at 100 milliwatts, plus the 50 microwatts of the screen for 60 seconds, which is 3 millijoules

then i spend 10 minutes typing out a 300-word reply at 60 words per minute with a duty cycle of about 50%. each time i press a key, the cpu powers up, processes for an average of 65536 clock cycles (0.3 ms), updates the screen, and powers back down. in total my 1500 keystrokes result in 450 ms of cpu time and 45 millijoules. keeping the screen active has cost another 30 millijoules.

finally i power up the 1.5 watt wifi radio hardware for 100 milliseconds and send the mail, consuming another 150 millijoules

total power consumption to read and answer the email: a bit under 250 millijoules. i'll get over 9000 emails out of a cr2032 coin cell, about six months of use

with with the csdvrx designed device, i have to leave the computer running at 1 watt for the whole 11 minutes, so i use 66 joules, 264 times as much. the cr2032 coin cell will last me for 33 emails

evidently the second device is not an adequate replacement for the first

---

as for corrupting the flash, a flash block that was partially written before the chip lost power looks exactly like a correctly written block some percentage of the time, maybe a high percentage like 99%. but sometimes you will read back corrupted data, maybe depending on temperature, emi, or state of charge. so cutting power to your industrial sds when you're not sure if the flash is writing or not is going to bite you sooner or later

better hope it's not on orbit when it happens

it was for me