• Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Meh, while there really could be less. At least they are all physically compatible. And backwards protocol compatible to the lowest common denominator. Which is a huge step forward.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      At least they are all physically compatible.

      They mostly support an electrical least-common-denominator (like, I have USB devices that won’t accept USB PD for charging below a given level), but they definitely aren’t all physically-compatible. There are a lot of physical USB connectors.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you, I had almost forgotten that you can’t make a comment on the Internet without someone misunderstanding even basic assumptions. Like in this case, a picture exclusively showing usb-c, could be assumed that a comment about it, would also be referring to usb-c.

        P.S. (I’m fully aware the last one is usb-a, the writer even makes note of it and why they included it).

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There nothing in the comment that you are responding to or OP’s original post that is specific to USB-C. OP references USB-A and USB-C both, and the comment you responded to doesn’t specify USB-C.

    • jiberish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seriously, as an IT person, I still never know what most of my USB ports are capable of, but I’m glad they are backwards compatible. If something is slow, then I try a different cable and port.