I welcome 240W, despite any potential arcing/melting issues, it seems worth the risk. However, it's masterful trolling on the part of USB-IF to name it USB-C 2

I welcome 240W, despite any potential arcing/melting issues, it seems worth the risk. However, it's masterful trolling on the part of USB-IF to name it USB-C 2.1. Their naming continues to be legendarily bad, why couldn't they just call it USB 4 instead of overloading the existing USB 2.1 version? Everyone needs to learn from the Wifi and LTE standards groups which finally abandoned 802.11acxqyerwzdfqwrty naming and moved to simple version numbers like "Wifi 6" and "5G". Simple version numbers are so much more effective at getting people to upgrade as well, because they're much easier to market to the average person. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-usb-blog/usb-2-1-2-0-1-1-device-enumeration-changes-in-windows-8/ba-p/270775 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-usb-blog/us...