this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
529 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59713 readers
5909 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find it a bit annoying that different usb-c implementations have different capabilities.
As in, not all cables are compatible with all devices, and there's not even a standardised way or reporting capabilities.
What's the point of being able to put every plug in every socket if you don't know if it's going to work?
Yea but that can be fixed by improving the current standard, not by changing the shape.
My kitchen scales have a USB-C port. While I certainly would like it to have the capability to stream GB/s worth of measuring data over it fact of the matter is I paid like ten bucks for it, all it knows is how to charge the CR2032 cell inside. I also don't expect it to support displayport alt mode, it has a seven-segment display I don't really think it's suitable as a computer monitor.
What's true though is that it'd be nice to have proper labelling standards for cables. It should stand to reason that the cable that came with the scales doesn't support high performance modes, heck it doesn't even have data lines literally the only thing it's capable of is low-power charging, nothing wrong with that but it'd be nice to be able to tell that it can only do that at a semi-quick glance when fishing for a cable in the spaghetti bin.