• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A shame the writers of the law didn’t have good enough knowledge of the underlying technology to mandate not just the USB C connector, but specific USB C standards. The fact that USB C cables are very much “you can’t even tell what it does without plugging it in” is a bit of a nightmare.

    But on the other hand, there’s always changes for further revisions in the future.

    • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And fortunately they made the law future proof. It doesn’t say that “hey, you should use USB-C” but it says “hey, you should use the connector mentioned in Appendix H which is defined by committee R”. That way they don’t need to start over the whole bureaucratic process the pass the law, just ask a committee to reevaluate the tech and they change the appendix. It can be USB-D from tomorrow.

      • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Quick aside, there won’t be a USB D (unless the USB people change their mind yet again), it will be something different from USB. The idea was to have USB A be what you plug on your source and B on your destination and was designed as a way to avoid power surges in the original 1.0 spec because the A side was physically different from the B side you weren’t ever going to plug in something that sends power to something that receives power (basically it prevented users from breaking their devices on accident). USB C changed that with a chip on each cable that handles negotiation before agreeing on a power spec