cross-posted from: https://lemmy.cringecollective.io/post/75583
why isn’t it ok? why???
Meme “the number of people who think this is an abomination” over a photo of a USB-A to USB-A cable, “but think this is perfectly acceptable” over a photo of a USB-C to USB-C cable, “makes me sick.”
We peaked at USB mini B.
As it being disgusting or great?
Objectively disgusting. How can one connector be so chunky while still being asymmetric?
USB-A requires three attempts to connect, C only one.
Six since it has A at both ends.
Huh, I’m not sure they are comparable.
Didn’t USB A and USB B use a master-slave relationship in which the male would (generally) always be the slave, whereas USB C uses agreement and discussion to decide the master and slave roles regardless of connector gender.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong. Also, do we say “agent” now instead of “slave”, or what is the new term?
I believe the common terms now are “domme” and “sub”
I can’t tell if this is real life or sarcasm…
Did I really miss the memo on this one?
No that’s the lingo the professionals use these days
I can confirm, I’m called sub at work
Ah yeah, I’ve heard that offices are rolling out a new role of office cumdump. Glad to hear from someone already in the role
actually they would be correct :
USB began as a protocol where one side (USB-A) takes the leading role and the other (USB-B) the following role . this was mandated by hardware with differently shaped plugs and ports . this made sense for the time as USB was ment to connect computers to peripherals .
however some devices don’t fit this binary that well : one might want to connect their phone to their computer to pull data off it , but they also might want to connect a keyboard to it , with the small form factor not allowing for both a USB-A and USB-B port. the solution was USB On-The-Go : USB Mini-A/B/AB and USB Micro-A/B/AB connectors have an additional pin which allows both modes of operations
with USB-C , aside from adding more pins and making the connector rotationally symmetric , a very similar yet differently named feature was included , since USB-C - USB-C connections were planed for
so yeah USB-A to USB-A connections are explicitly not allowed , for a similar reason as you only see CEE 7 (fine , or the objectively worse NEMA) plugs on both ends of a cable only in joke made cables . USB-C has additional hardware to support both sides using USB-C which USB-A , neither in the original or 3.0 revision , has .
With USB-C isn’t there still a slave-master dynamic that is now negotiated via software rather than hardware?
a slave-master dynamic
please don’t use that term, every time i see it i immediately verge on orgasming. you’ve already made me ruin 2 undergarments today. i have a serious bdsm kink and this is not funny.
What if I put a C-to-A Adapter on both ends? Is that okay?
Yea but it’s inefficient. USB-A has a significantly lower transfer rate than USB-C so it’ll bottleneck
USB-A male to USB-A male is not in any USB standard (not entirely true, but compliant cables are very rare and don’t connect voltage), and if you plug it into a device it’s not meant for, the behavior is entirely unspecified. It will probably do nothing. But it might fry your USB controller that is not expecting to receive voltage.
USB-C to USB-C is in the spec, and if you plug in two host devices, they won’t hurt each other. You can actually charge a host device over USB-C, unlike USB-A.
That’s why it isn’t ok. It’s not the same thing, it’s not in the standard, and it can even be dangerous (to the device).
I think the argument that A-A should be in the spec.
But usb-c is just so much better all around.
