894
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
894 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2898 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is my point. They haven't standardized anything but the shape of the plug. It's a stupid law. USB is NOT a standard. It is many standards. USB-C and do 5V, 9V, 12V, 20V. And USB cables are not all capable of the different voltages and current either.
So what problem has been solved? There will still be myriad chargers and combinations of things that do and don't work. The shape of the adapter will just be the same. Groovy.
That wall socket puts out a reasonably standard voltage (depending on country) and a reasonably standard amperage.
So how is it an improvement to have the same myriad of different charging standards but also multiple different port configurations? Cables are capable of all these voltages but the charging circuitry is not and your USB-PD laptop charger will charge phones and anything else that share the same port. Adding a different port just ensures that you must buy different chargers/cables for each device. It also means that all accessories are useless once a manufacturer changes their proprietary port design.
I won't argue that they could do a better job unifying additional standards like power delivery and data transfer speeds, but eliminating useless variations is an improvement regardless of how you want to spin it.
If you think that's my argument then you, and a dozen or so others, have sorely misunderstood anything I'm saying.
The purpose for these laws is ostensibly to "reduce e-waste" which is complete BS. And I know it's BS because practically everyone arguing with me is NOT making that argument. It's all about personal conveniences which is an abuse of state power and often has unintended consequences.