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.
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.
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
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
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.
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.
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