This is unhelpful. The whole point of the article is that both of those middle columns are also USB 3.2, i.e. you have this: * USB 3.2 Gen 1 5 Gbps (formerly U

This is unhelpful. The whole point of the article is that both of those middle columns are also USB 3.2, i.e. you have this: * USB 3.2 Gen 1 5 Gbps (formerly USB 3.1 Gen 1) (formerly USB 3.0) * USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps (formerly USB 3.1 Gen 2) * USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps Literally everyone that came up with this ridiculous naming scheme and literally everyone who approved it should never be allowed to participate in a working group ever again. This level of incompetency is just absurd. These people cannot be allowed to pollute critical standards with their terrible ideas.