You need that for power regulation. One of the reasons that you can use a USB-C lead with anything is because all of the devices that require different power will just tell the cable that and the chip inside the cable deals with it. Otherwise there would have to be different cables for different voltage requirements.
You can do cable detection with just a few resistors. Why make everyone use active cables just for basic functionality? Aside from exceptional rare circumstances, consumer grade cables should be passive devices IMO.
You don’t need it though. The power regulation is a decision between the load and the supply devices, the cable is an unnecessary third party. The cable should just be a multicore connection between two things, not a third device.
If I had to go out on a limb though, I’d say it’s because manufacturers were selling cheap cables that didn’t meet the specification, and people were using them with higher power devices, causing overheating. By including a chip in the spec for the cable, you can push some of the responsibility back towards the cable manufacturer, and they can limit the maximum current to whatever they’ve designed to. In which case, we already do have different cables for different voltages - if your cable isn’t rated for 100W, then it might force a lower power even if your device and charger can do 100W. However it would be better if cable manufacturers would just meet the basic design specification to begin with, rather than creating unnecessary overhead.
It doesn’t make any difference either it’s between the supply and the device or it’s between the cable and the device it’s still two devices.
By pushing the responsibility onto the cable it allows you to operate the cable directly from a USB port. So you can have things like electrical sockets with USB connections and you don’t have to have chips in the sockets, because typically they’re just dumb electrical interfaces. It also means that the device delivering the power doesn’t have to be actually fully switched on, so you can recharge your phone from a USB port on your computer and you don’t have to power the computer on. As long as there is an open electrical channel to the port the cable will deal with it all itself.
Also it’s more efficient because you would have to have a control circuit in every single power delivery device, but this way you can have it in just the one cable, so now it is one chip for an unlimited number of power delivery devices.
So you can have things like electrical sockets with USB connections and you don’t have to have chips in the sockets, because typically they’re just dumb electrical interfaces.
If the supply is dumb and cannot negotiate power, then there is no need to negotiate power and it will fall back on regular 5V USB. The same if the load is dumb. In this case, there is no need for a cable chip.
It also means that the device delivering the power doesn’t have to be actually fully switched on, so you can recharge your phone from a USB port on your computer and you don’t have to power the computer on.
If the USB port has power to it, the computer is supplying it. The voltage would be on but open circuit. The computer would not have to supply the negotiation circuitry until a cable has been connected end to end and the voltage circuit is closed.
You’re trying to present this as the cable replacing one of the devices, but it doesn’t, it’s an extra 3rd device in the negotiation. All 3 devices must permit a certain charging level for that level to be used. It may have some benefit in ensuring that cable load capacity isn’t exceeded, but like I say it would be far better if the cables were reliably manufactured properly to handle the specified loads.
Naw, USB-A is much more secure. I plug that end into my power bank, throw it in a bag or my pocket, and it’ll disconnect maybe 1 time out of the 100 that the USB-C or Lightning end does. It is a little larger, though.
I hate USB-C because until now the standard didn’t require any markings and the standards themselves are hot garbage.
Go ahead, pull out a USB-C cable from your drawer and tell me what it does. I bet you instantly know which cable is VGA, HDMI, DisplayPort, FireWire, or serial, but you’ll never know for sure what your USB-C cable supports.
Precisely what I’m talking about. They can afford to do so, since they lost the trust of the user about 2 statements from the CEO ago.
And not to go too deep into it, but how the hell are you going to create a brand new pricing scheme in only “a couple of days”, without already having a draft of it ready? Don’t you wanna check in with your lawyer? Your CFO? This shit must take more than 2 days to do.
I don’t think they checked with their lawyer before releasing the first one (that had some pretty obviously legally dubious provisions). Why would they start asking the legal team now?
They want apple to buy them. Apple can’t really lean on unreal at this point since the epic lawsuit. So unity is the next viable option. They want apple to buy them and/or they wanted a piece of every download on apples phones/vr.
Apples last announcement is telegraphing a shift towards gaming on some level. Unity is being opportunistic albeit tone-deaf AF.
This is the part they’re missing: apple actually care about the appearance of quality.
I’m not saying apple makes quality products, there’s some good debate there that they really don’t. But they certainly foster the belief that apple products are superior in quality to their competitors.
Unity is a great engine when it’s used well, but it doesn’t have a reputation for quality. It has a Reputation that says “anyone can publish a bolted together asset flip and make a quick buck off of twitter hype”
I doubt apple would acquire unity based purely on the fact that unity does not adhere to apple’s ideals on branding. Apple tends to buy rights from young companies that don’t have large established brands yet, because it’s easier to fold them into the cult of apple. An established brand with a known reputation would be a tough sell, especially when Apple has the resources to simply make their own product that’s tailored to their hardware.
That’s a good point. I know apple usually doesn’t do acquisitions because cultures just clash too much (especially when it’s a large company). It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Unity just shot themselves in the foot. If I was a game dev, I’d think twice or thrice about starting a new project with unity.
There will certainly be a chilling effect on their revenue moving forward. I don’t understand how companies this large make gaffs this bad. Do they not have someone assigned to ‘red team’ major decisions.
I always assign someone or a team of people to red team key decisions. Especially if everyone in the room thinks its a great idea.
No, because the entire industry and most of their customers are still pissed off enough at them that it’s still going to have very serious long term effects.
That’s my point - I am fairly certain they’ve destroyed any trust and goodwill the industry had towards them, to the extent that I would bet money on Unity folding in a year or two.
The only thing that would restore that trust is for Unity to dump their entire exec team, and they’re not going to do that, because the board and the exec team are all buddies.
I don’t think this is recoverable. They tried a naked cash grab (plus some other sketchy stuff lumped in), it blew up in their faces, and now everyone who does business with them knows that Unity’s leadership sees no issue with unilaterally changing all of their business agreements in a sweeping fashion. That’s not a behavior pattern that will entice other companies and developers to do business with them.
They’re an industry pariah at this point. They’d have to hand out crazy sweetheart deals to get people onboard (which, with the AppLovin context, was basically happening already)… but anyone who takes that deal should ask themselves: “What if Unity decides to change this deal, too?”
“Gamedev here. This is NOT normal. I suspect a bug happened on Valve’s side.
EDIT: checked our Steam email again: “If you do not add a USD price to these columns for your game before November 20th, we will default to the standard USD pricing you already have in Steamworks.”, seems like manual input was explicitly needed after all, but I’m not the only dev who missed it apparently.
Here’s a summary of what happened:
<span style="color:#323232;">Last month, Steam notified all devs and publishers of the price change
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Steam automatically suggested prices for LATAM and MENA (mostly half the USA price)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Through the Steam pricing tool, devs can manually override the suggestion with another price
</span><span style="color:#323232;">We manually lowered the price to our 2nd game, but let Steam decide for our 1st game ($12.49)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Come today, and through Steamdb, we see that Steam did NOT apply its own suggested price for our 1st game. Instead it applied USA price (24.99). We still see the halved, Steam-suggested $12.49 price in our pricing tool.
</span>
Game developers are now discovering this and are hurriedly manually changing the prices to make it fairer to LATAM and MENA regions. We just did that and are waiting for Valve to approve the change.
I promise that outside of AAA publishers like EA, almost no game developer wanted this to happen. We’re aware that this is counter-intuitive and we know it won’t help with sales (or our reputation) at all.”
Considering that Steam now requires for manual input for the prices for different regions, is there a tool that a) lists these regions and b) calculates the median suggested pricing for these regions in comparison to the region you (the developer) is based in?
I know an excel sheet would probably be a good start, but considering that therevare also developers in regions other than EU (€) and US ($), it would be a tremendous help to be able to input a price you have in mind, in your own currency, and have the prices calculated in other currencies in the respective regions.
Steam’s price settings page already has a very convenient Recommended Prices button that sets your game’s price to what Valve estimates would be okay for that region. For most devs, that’s perfectly adequate. Valve already did the homework so devs don’t have to.
Publishers that would want to charge more would likely just set the USA price anyway and forgo regional pricing.
And if you want to charge less than the recommended price, while appreciated, why?
I mean even if you didn’t want that to happen its still nither your nor valves fault, valve needs to have company security, and dealing with money thats essentially worthless is a high risk for them, defaulting to USD prices was the only option for both countries to continue running the steam store at all there, otherwise they probably would have to shut it down there.
I actually have that in my library because I bought the Index but haven’t played it yet because I wanted to play the first 2 games first. I didn’t play the first game for very long tho because I got stuck at some point early into the game and haven’t felt like continuing yet. You can also really feel the age of that game, controls and that kinda stuff. Not sure if I should just punch through that game or just say fuck it and play Alyx.
Well you’re in luck because there are VR mods available free for the older Half Life games. Just get the Orange Box or something with all the half life backlog and VR mod them for free.
If by “first game” you mean HL1, you could try playing “Black Mesa” which is a fan remake of the game, in the same engine that powers HL2. It’s not a 1:1 recreation, but it’s close enough (and I feel it improves on some things).
HL2 is also 3 seperate games (HL2, HL2 Episode 1, HL2 Episode 2), so make sure you have all of those in your library.
At the very least, I’d suggest playing HL2/EP1/EP2 before Alyx, since those would provide the expected background for Alyx, despite it technically being a prequel-ish thing.
Half life 1 just got a new big update that makes it much better to play this day and age and fixed a bunch of bugs. Either way you could skip 1. As a kid I never played 1 and went straight into 2, then 2 episodes 1 and 2 with the orange box. I still haven’t finished 1 but with this new update I think I’ll go back to it some point soon now.
Am not sure there’s a way for them to release HL3 and don’t disappoint huge number of people. Not because they suck at making games but because expectations have grown so so so much they are downright unachievable now.
If you wonder why public companies with billions in revenue can’t make a Steam competitor is because they can’t think long term, being a private company allows Valve to just work on what they want and grow If they need to
It nearly happened, but then we protested and tanked the stock price to fuck Spez for fucking us. Now most of the subs are poorly moderated by mods that don’t care about their community. Content is suffering and revenue is dropping. Spez pissed on his golden goose and we decided to speed the process up so he couldn’t sell before it drowned.
Good joke. Investors will see wasted financial potential and make valve do it.
When you have external money you now also have away part of a platform. And the investors don’t care. Make number big fast. Nobody there is caring about long term
These quotes are from a time when games were stamped into hard plastic and circuitry. No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are two examples of games with rocky launches that are both amazing now. Saying a game is forever bad simply isn’t true anymore provided the makers stand behind the product.
NMS is better since release but saying it's amazing now is a bit of an embellishment. At its core it's the same game with all the fundamental issues it always had, there's just more fluff added on.
I mean, IMO it’s good enough to get your moneys worth out of it, its a hell of a lot of fun actually. It’s just that the main storyline is relatively short and the gameplay loop after completing the main story is not engaging enough to make it one of those games that you end up sinking 500+ hours into. To me that puts it in the same tier as Subnautica.
Out of all my VR games almost none make it into double digits playtime (notable exceptions, Beat Saber and Boneworks) but I have logged hundreds of hours in NMS VR. No other VR experience comes close in terms of content.
But they don’t most of the time. If you aren’t very lucky like with No Man’s Syk or Cyberpunk, you are stuck with an abandonend pile of garbage. And even with those games, it would have been better for everyone involved if they were what they are now from the start.
It’s a lot better, but it’s not Fallout 5, which is what I think a lot of people – including myself – actually wanted.
If you wanted to play a game in the Fallout universe with some of your friends or your spouse or something, then, yeah, I can see Fallout 76 being a legitimate fit.
But Bethesda built up a fan base around a franchise that liked playing an immersive, story-oriented, highly-moddable game where the main character is kind of core to the story. They moved to a genre where xxPussySlayer69xx is jetpacking around, the story couldn’t matter much past the initial part of the game (since the point of the online portion is to have people replaying relatively-cheap-to-produce content), that couldn’t be modded much (to keep balance and players from cheating), and where the player’s character cannot matter much, because there are many player characters.
They did make some things that I’d call improvements, like shifting away from PvP (the Fallout 76 playerbase has not shown a lot of enthusiasm for it) and reducing the emphasis on survival mechanics (it turns out that focusing a lot on gathering food and water can kind of detract from playing the rest of the game if you have limited time to play with other people).
But Fallout 76 just fundamentally cannot be Fallout 5, because it’s aimed at online play, replaying the same events over and over. It can be a lot better at being an online-oriented Fallout-themed game than Fallout 76 was at release, and they did that.
People complaining about, say, the lack of human NPCs in the initial release are complaining that they want that kind of single-player-oriented game. Bethesda put some in, true enough, shifted things a little towards earlier games in the series. But they have not and were not going to convert the game into Fallout 5.
There have been franchises that have spanned multiple video game genres. Think of, say, Star Wars. But I’m not sure how often there are long-running video game franchises that shift to other genres successfully. If Capcom decided to make a 4X Mega Man game, or a dating sim Mega Man game, I’m not sure that things would go well.
Granted, Fallout 76 is closer to earlier 3D Fallout games than a hypothetical Mega Man dating sim would be. But I think that there are some important, not immediately-obvious divergences from what made the series popular.
Bethesda built up a fan base around a franchise that liked playing an immersive, story-oriented, highly-moddable game where the main character is kind of core to the story. They moved to a genre where xxPussySlayer69xx is jetpacking around, the story couldn’t matter much past the initial part of the game (since the point of the online portion is to have people replaying relatively-cheap-to-produce content), that couldn’t be modded much (to keep balance and players from cheating), and where the player’s character cannot matter much, because there are many player characters.
For real. I know every Fallout fan says this, but I don’t even need a new Fallout game-a remaster of new Vegas or even FO3 would be awesome. I know that’s not easy but it’s less work than designing a whole new game. Sometimes devs could save themselves a lot of trouble and aggravation if they listened to the fanbase instead of trying to tell us what we want
Specifically with the Fallout series, I think that one complication is that there was a lot of unhappiness way back when with the series moving from a much-liked isometric, turn-based/real-time game to a 3D game with shooter elements. A lot of people, including myself, didn’t think that it would likely reproduce what they liked about the series. And, well, it was a change, but what ultimately came out was pretty good, and while I’m sure that it didn’t cut it for some people – you had things like the Wasteland series continuing the isometric approach – I think that it was a pretty decent transition. The same people who liked the isometric games generally liked Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. So in that case, the game series was taken through a major shift that a number of players were skeptical about, and it generally worked.
But with Fallout 76, I think that the transition caused tradeoffs that didn’t work out as well for many players.
3 and new Vegas had such effort to keep the same level of writing, and VATS was an excellent nod to to the isometric games. So while the form was different, the experience was still fallout. 76 was a copy-paste of FO4 with no story, no npcs, and the entire game revolved around the most controversial part of 4: settlements.
While we’re at it, mad props to facepunch. Rust was always a great game. Even through the weird bits with xp and blueprint scraps and aimcone, it always felt like a complete game.
Granted, I’m not touching it again unless a new plague shuts everything down for a month or I quit my job, but if you have 18 hours to waste every day it’s the best game ever.
But the damage is lasting. NMS will always be known for the absolute shitshow it was on launch. Props to them for eventually delivering, but the game will never be as iconic as it could have been. Like compare bg3’s reception of “holy shit it’s so good” vs NMS’s “oh it’s finally good now.”
Indeed. I always read in forums people asking if NMS is worth playing now. Imagine if it had a great launch from the beginning. It would’ve been much more successful and wouldn’t have a bad reputation like it does know.
On the other hand, making me a beta tester for games I paid AAA prices for leaves me with a very negative feeling. You only get one chance to make a good first impression.
Also, while some genres can be fixed after release, some can’t because they aren’t very replayable.
A number of adventure games, for example – you’re probably not going to play through them many times. If you blow the initial release, you kind of blew the experience.
I think it depends on if the bad game has enough public attention that it can get a second chance after launch. When No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk got updated, the story was plastered all over the game news channels/sites.
Most games if they get off to a bad start, nobody gives them a second thought. How would you even know if it got better? If nobody is newly buying and reviewing it, the steam reviews won’t reflect the change in quality.
There’s something to be said for the unfairness of which of these games that botch their launch get that second chance, but it kinda is what it is. People can’t pay attention to everything.
I know, but that still requires that some people give the game another look and review it. That works for games that people keep checking on to see if it’s good yet, not so much for some no name game that people don’t give a second thought to when it turns out bad at launch.
The question bring why you’d keep working on something you got money for. Especially when you’ve been shown time and time again that people keep buying your games anyway. Seems more cost effective to pay those marketing people than your code monkeys…
Tomatoes splat really well, especially rotten ones. Maybe eggs would be good, but tomatoes are cheaper. I think an open source easy to make at home slimy and smelly (preferably also something that stains) water balloon solution could do the job for a modern consumer base. Who wants to carry around smelly rotten tomatoes?
So… basically, Musk turned up at a studio and threatened the devs with a gun (which antique or not, could have been loaded and functional - shooting with antique guns is a thing) to make them put him in the game?
I know there’s a massive cultural difference around guns between the UK and the US, but I’m genuinely struggling to see how “a man has turned up to our studio with a gun because he wants us to put him in our game” doesn’t warrant a call to the police.
Hence why, when calling the police, you wouldn’t say who it is. Just “a man” or “a person” has come in with the gun. Which happens to be true, since until proved otherwise, Musk can indeed be accurately described as a person. Whether he manages to wiggle out of it later is less important than the immediate problem of getting the gun-wielding lunatic out of the studio.
Yeah, hence why I said “until proven otherwise”. At some point someone will pull the mask off and reveal the monstrosity underneath. But until then we have to be the bigger people, give the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is actually a human being.
Whether or not the gun was loaded, the person wielding it sure was, and it’s much easier to say “Call the cops on him” if you’re not worried about whether that guy might be rich and vindictive enough to ruin your life over it.
No matter whether Musk would have actually had any way of doing so, the fear of the possibility alone can be enough to cow you into compliance.
There are ways of surreptitiously sending a message to, say, someone who isn’t in the room, without making it a very obvious call to the police. Or, for that matter, just dial the number on your phone and don’t say anything other than “your gun is really impressive but I’m a bit uncomfortable with having it pointed in this direction”. The operator on the other end will know what to do with that.
Because another way Musk could ruin your life is shooting you while showing off and waving a gun around, given that he is immature and arrogant enough to have loaded it, and reckless enough for his finger to slip.
Sounds like assault with a deadly weapon, and if he took it out to show, then it's brandishing. It doesn't matter if it was non-firming because the target didn't know that, and typically these laws are written to be what "a reasonable person would believe".
Also, at the time this happened he was a known user of Marijuana and thus not eligible to own a firearm, as that rule had not yet been struck down.
Thanks for the explanation! It sounds fairly similar to the law here, where it’s based on what a reasonable person would believe - so even waving a realistic toy gun at someone would get someone in trouble, if the person being threatened with it would reasonably believe it was real.
If charged as a felony, you could be facing a sentence of two to four years in State prison. Regular assault (Penal Code § 240), is always charged as a misdemeanor offense.
The instrument used includes any type of firearm, knife, bat, car, or anything other type of weapon that could produce significant harm to the victim.
In order to prove a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you assaulted another person and you used a deadly weapon or force that would likely result in great bodily injury.
An assault charge does not require that you actually make physical contact with or injure the person.
The English voice recordings for Cyberpunk 2077 were all done in London and LA. So it's basically sure that it wasn't Poland, and it's much more likely that it was LA than London in this case.
I have shot and killed a deer with a flintlock gun. They’re not toys or props. He committed assault with a deadly weapon and the whole word is just like “Oh, that’s just wish.com iron man. You know how he is.”
Watching Twitter crash and burn under musk has been so much fun. It being a haven for all the worst dregs of humanity and an advertiser’s worst nightmare is just the cherry on top. Old Twitter before mush for brains musk was still salvageable. He’s somehow done everything to make it worse.
I’m not sure I’d call it fun, but there’s definitely something soothing in the thought that no matter how much I fuck my life up, there’s no way I can ever make a 44 billion dollar mistake. So there’s that.
The new name alone isn't what made Twitter crap, but it is symbolic of the massive changes made to the site by the new management. I like to think of it this way: Twitter is dead. X is the reanimated corpse.
X is modern New Coke. At this point, I’m not even sure which of the worst CEOs I’d compare musk to. He’s like all of their worst traits rolled into one. I have no doubt there’s some weird financial accounting going on at Tesla, just that they haven’t been found out just yet. His involvement into the crypto sphere and with doge should have thrown up regulatory alarm bells already.
I think what we really want is to have it restored to pre-musk-ownership level of functionality. But that doesn’t make for a nice four syllable group chant. Also I doubt the douche is capable of ever admitting how wrong he was.
I started reading the version posted, saw the original was on 404, clicked on that and shared the link with my wife, and as soon as I saw the link preview I IMMEDIATELY deleted it and said No! Don't read that one! It's not redacted enough!"
So in this case I absolutely agree, the PC Gamer version was the better one to share.
Most of the planets are dull on purpose because my graphics card catches fire if there’s too much excitement on screen. Thanks for looking out for me, Todd!
They didn’t disclose the fact that the passes would be using blockchain technology, apparently. Quite why they thought this was necessary is not clear, but it’s not inherently a bad thing.
Unfortunately for them, however, blockchain/cryptocurrency/NFTs are all interchangeable according to the general public, so this has created a bit of a backlash.
From the quotes in the article, they didn’t just “not disclose” so much as “lied”. Regardless of subject matter, when someone cares enough to make sure something they don’t want to be associated with isn’t involved and then they find out it actually is, they have a right to be upset.
“Aware of the crypto thing,” he tweeted. “We were told there was no NFT/crypto component but looks like that may not be the case. Waiting for responses to our emails/phone calls like others.”
Which is a misunderstanding on the part of the author of that tweet: blockchain ≠ crypto. While it is the technology that crypto and NFTs are based on, blockchain can be used for a wide variety of different purposes.
So while the organizers probably should have been more clear about how they were going to implement the technology, it appears they didn’t say anything that wasn’t true.
I don’t understand what it is about these media outlets with their allergy to the word “and”
It isn’t print you don’t have to say space or ink just put “and” in the title.
This time still could be easily rewritten to make more sense and if short length is there goal then you could rewrite it to be even shorter and it would still make more sense
“An influencer-based esports league has imploded over NFT controversy”
About a decade ago or so, I found myself in a reddit argument with someone that claimed they had never attempted to plug a USB in unsuccessfully. They said that every single time they’ve plugged in, it was the correct way. Some people are insane.
That person is either a flat out liar, or they are incredibly anal and waste a lot of time looking at the connector and input every single time they connect a cable.
I do not have a problem with looking at the connector when I can see it. But often enough I am fumbling a cable into some connector behind a PC, docking station or at night when the light is out.
I wouldn’t say it’s never happened to me but 99% of the time it works. I just look at the idents, face it right way up, and shove it in. Unless I’m drunk or it’s dark, I’ve never been able to relate.
Most things I have are labelled properly, and I’m only hedging my bets by saying most because I can’t think of anything I own that isn’t labelled properly
Honestly, with high quality USB A plugs you could feel the logo on the side that was “up”, and if you knew which side your motherboard or front panel considered “up”, it’d be easy to always plug devices in correctly.
Just that the vast majority of manufacturers stopped caring relatively early on, which meant you couldn’t rely on it anymore.
I say usually but it’s basically the rule. Of all my things only the QNAP NAS has a slim side down port, and maybe that’s some other convention I’m not aware of since it’s for the copy-data port. That’s among a random pile consisting of a Cisco networking equipment, Intel NUC, old macbook, new microsoft and HP laptops, a hdmi/usb switch, ps4, and a raspberry pi
Perhaps a controversial opinion here, but the usefulness of reversibility is vastly overrated. It’s not a game changer, just a tiny first-world luxury that’s nice to have, but it does it by introducing a bunch of unnecessary complexity that I’d rather avoid. Not worth the trade off IMO. I can count on one hand the number of minutes USB-C has saved me by being reversible and I honestly don’t care
In theory, USB-C should be better, but in practice, the quality control is all over the place.
All of my micro USB cables and ports have lasted just fine. I used one daily with my phone for 10+ years with no issues, and I’ve only had maybe two cables ever actually fail. Meanwhile, I’ve already had at least 5 USB-C cables or dongles that have fully failed, and plus the primary USB-C charging port on a laptop just completely die. I wish it was better, but it just isn’t.
Also if USB-C was just replacing just micro USB I’d be ok with that. But the problem is they’re also replacing USB-A, and Type C is not nearly as durable as Type A since it’s so small, it’s just physically impossible. I wish they made a larger version of the Type C port. Same shape, same pins, just bigger in every dimension. As large as Type A, for durability.
I’m not a big fan of Apple, but the lightning connector is just better, physically. It’s way more durable in practice since it’s just a solid piece. I wish USB-C was designed that way instead of what we actually got.
USB C was designed so that the spring contacts that wear out/get damaged are in the relatively cheap cable, and the solid, more durable tang that the contacts slide on is in the expensive device.
Now let’s have a look at Apple’s design for their lightning connector… hmm I wonder why they designed it like that?
The issue is that USBC was the first standard to really take the mechanical design process seriously in a consumer context. In doing so, it was made both way more ergonomic and way more durable. I’d argue that without the focus on some of these “small but marketable” consumer-oriented bits, we would not have gotten the great overall connector design we did.
I’m not a big fan of Apple, but the lightning connector is just better, physically. It’s way more durable in practice since it’s just a solid piece. I wish USB-C was designed that way instead of what we actually got.
If I recall correctly, Lightning connectors are designed in a way that makes the port more likely to wear out. USB-C is designed in a way that makes the cable more likely to wear out. I would rather replace my $5 charging cable than replace my $150 (or more!) phone.
I am just laughing here because I spent the day dealing with ancient serial tech pigtails and DB9s. You people have no idea the pain of losing multiple days of your life trying to get RS-232 to work. Especially when stuff doesn’t follow the standards it is supposed to follow.
If it’s on a laptop I could see it. The empty half almost always needs to be on top on the male side because the female end is almost always plastic on top.
If you can see through the two rectangular cutouts on the plug, it’s the right way around. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help if the plug is turned 90°, and also some computers have it upside down (looking at you, GPD).
I mean if you tend to plug things in at the same computer a lot it’s pretty easy to always plug things in right the first time, even when not looking because you just kinda know what way it’s meant to be. And laptops usually have all theirs pointing the same way so you know one you know them all. If something has text on it, it’s usually oriented in such a way that when plugged in you can read it. Or they have a little face and you know which way the face is meant to be facing
I have a similar “power” and while I’m not flawless, it’s only really new or unfamiliar devices/computers that trip me up. Or plugs that don’t actually have any identifying features and/or unusual ones
Well, I rarely fail because I look inside the connector and see where the plastic is and then plug it properly. I tend to fail when I cannot see inside the connector because it’s in a weird spot.
I guess the redditor was either bragging about always looking inside or was a kid
pcgamer.com
Top