this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
46 points (92.6% liked)
Hardware
6616 readers
72 users here now
All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.
Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:
- Augmented Reality
- Gaming Laptops
- Laptops
- Linux Hardware
- Linux Phones
- Monitors
- Raspberry Pi
- Retro Computing
- Virtual Reality
Rules (Click to Expand):
-
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
-
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
-
No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.
-
Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.
-
Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).
-
If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.
Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its going to cause issues when you grab a random USB-C cable out of your USB-C cable box and try to use a low bandwidth cable that has USB-C connectors when you need a high bandwidth cable that has USB-C connectors.
I don't get how thats hard to understand.
Because you're arguing across purposes.
For most cabling standards thusfar in history, the physical connectors indicated the purpose and capabilities of the cable. This has a 9-pin DIN, it's an RS-232 serial cable. This has RJ-45s it's at least a 100BASE-T networking cable. This is HDMI, suitable for attaching a DVD player to a television.
USB has spent the last 30 years fucking that up by trying to make one cable to rule them all...except they've made like eight different connector standards, A, B, mini-A, mini-B, micro-A, micro-B, 3B and C. We've arrived into a world where we're allegedly standardizing on the USB-C plug and socket, but it has become damn near impossible to tell by examining the plug, socket or cable what capacities it actually has. A USB 3.1 cable can be outwardly physically identical to a USB4 cable. And they make USB 2.0 cables with A-C or C-C plugs, every smart phone comes with one in the box. None of the high speed data lines are rigged up, only the power and old USB2.0 lines are, so it will transfer data, just very slow.
Now, why do they do that? Because some people actually don't want the data lines. Because a USB 3.1 and later USB-C cable has like 19 conductors in it. that makes the cable thick and stiff. And if ya basic, all you do is charge thay phone, eat hot chip and lie, a high speed capable cable is difficult to run from the socket behind your headboard up the back of your night stand to the back of your wireless charger, it's so heavy and stiff that it might pull the empty charger off the table, like an HDMI cord does to a Roku. If ya basic, you don't care about data transfer speeds because you never transfer data via cable, your phone is a Tiktok and doordash machine. So why would you pay $30 for a single cable that sucks to use?
If instead you're the kind of umm actually jackass nerd that has a Lemmy account and opinions about systemd, you've got two Raspberry Pis on your desk next to the cable your new phone came with, and your phone is plugged into the PC you built with a USB 3.2 rated cable you bought from Cable Matters and then labelled as such with a Brother P-Touch label maker. /autobiography
Unrelated but I just switched over from Reddit to Lemmy and that's exactly the kind of comments that I was hoping to find, you gave me a good laugh & write very well, thanks for this
You don't know the purpose of a USB-C cable because they all look the same.
Tell me, what is this cable capable of?
there are two cables there.
Judging by the thickness of the cable, they're USB 2.0 cables intended mainly for charging. A USB 3.x cable is going to be about as thick as the plug body. You vs. the guy she told you not to worry about: