4 ms·

> What you show as risk seems to me like a society extremely good at managing risk & cooperatively improving. Our margin-of-safety is high everywhere & violatio

> What you show as risk seems to me like a society extremely good at managing risk & cooperatively improving. Our margin-of-safety is high everywhere & violations get dealt with. This seems dismissive. What you are saying is that, since product recalls exist, there is no point in enforcing higher standards, not even for safety reasons. > USB-C's minimum requirement is 20V3A, 60W. It's really not a difficult standard to meet [...] 20V is more a factor of the connector than the cable. The literal problem here is that there are manufacturers that would not meet the minimum standards, and USB-IF and sellers do not seem to be in the mood of enforcing them either, so we are left with the other end, hardware vendors. > This sounds more more searching desperately for FUD. And more lacking any real evidence that the rest of the world is actually all catching on fire & burning down all the time. I don't think you understand the issue at hand. Safety standards, generally speaking, aren't in place to avoid a 100% prevalence of accidents and/or deaths in their context, but the very low percentage of cases when the preconditions may lead to accidents and/or deaths. In Canada last year, there were just over 140 house fires caused by phone accessories, which admittedly is not a lot, but in optimal conditions, there should be none. If the USB-IF did their job, standards were actually enforced, and sellers and manufacturers were actually liable for the crap they sell, there should not be any discussion around this. Instead, every time a phone catches fire while charging, instead of mentioning the off-brand cable or charger, it's the phone manufacturer making the headlines, so here we are.

rektide 4y ago
USB-IF does do their job, quite well. It's the authoritarian mindset, it's Apple-istic to demand there be some strict top-down system demanding compliance, collecting money, and relentlessly pursuing everyone else legally. So USB-IF certification is not required. There are a variety of cables out there, of various quality, huge numbers uncertified but also more than adequate. Few even sub-par cables pose real risk. With the safeguards USB has builtin risk is tiny. I would greatly doubt the cable was a cofactor in even 2% of these 150 house fires/year. In return, we get the benefit of much cheaper cables, that folks do review quite heavily. We also get really interesting & really useful non-compliant products, that I make use of & enjoy regularly: tiny little usb-a to usb-c female adapters[1] that are out of spec because you could concievably make a nonsense circuit & injure a product, but which are again wildly useful. Building this world where authority & control are wired in everywhere, where we use the state & the legal system to hunt down & enforce folks on a narrow prescribed track sounds awful. There are some shitty shitty products folks can run into- yes- but mostly we're already well protected, and the market pretty quickly identifies the truly wretched; thr trade-off here, to allow an open world versus insisting on control, seems apparent to me, and those folks with the desire to use certified gear will be in great hands with usb-if gear (the idea that apple certification is "more safe" seems like a joke to me). I fail to see the case for adversarialism, that you seem to clutch for.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > USB-IF does do their job, quite well. > It's the authoritarian mindset, it's Apple-istic to demand there be some strict top-down system demanding compliance, collecting money, and relentlessly pursuing everyone else legally. A manufacturer that makes its devices refuse to work with products that do not comply with _standards_, set by an organisation that defines them, but refuses to enforce them, is now authoritarian. > Building this world where authority & control are wired in everywhere, where we use the state & the legal system to hunt down & enforce folks on a narrow prescribed track sounds awful. This is already happening, market and nation wide, and I'm glad it does. This is not an Apple thing. There must be some control and enforcement over safety and functional standards. If you want your house to be in good standing with the state, you cannot use any sort of electricity cable for in-wall installations, or any sort of pipes for your drinking water. You could always leave if you don't agree with these rules, as you could choose not to buy Apple too. Another point is that the market does not self regulate. That's the same stupid idea that has been disproven so many times, I'm surprised any sane person would still believe in it. Markets care more about efficiency at making money, than safety. There are countless examples of large companies weighting between safety and profits, and they choose profits every single time, because for most, in the long run, is worth it. But overall, your position is not that of the common folk anyway. You talk about reviewers, and markets, and insist that nothing is a "risk", even when it is your belief against actual recall numbers. Maybe you should ask yourself if most people who buy their charging cables at gas stations are doing their "own research".

rektide 4y ago

USB-IF does do their job, quite well. It's the authoritarian mindset, it's Apple-istic to demand there be some strict top-down system demanding compliance, collecting money, and relentlessly pursuing everyone else legally. So USB-IF certification is not required. There are a variety of cables out there, of various quality, huge numbers uncertified but also more than adequate. Few even sub-par cables pose real risk. With the safeguards USB has builtin risk is tiny. I would greatly doubt the cable was a cofactor in even 2% of these 150 house fires/year. In return, we get the benefit of much cheaper cables, that folks do review quite heavily. We also get really interesting & really useful non-compliant products, that I make use of & enjoy regularly: tiny little usb-a to usb-c female adapters[1] that are out of spec because you could concievably make a nonsense circuit & injure a product, but which are again wildly useful. Building this world where authority & control are wired in everywhere, where we use the state & the legal system to hunt down & enforce folks on a narrow prescribed track sounds awful. There are some shitty shitty products folks can run into- yes- but mostly we're already well protected, and the market pretty quickly identifies the truly wretched; thr trade-off here, to allow an open world versus insisting on control, seems apparent to me, and those folks with the desire to use certified gear will be in great hands with usb-if gear (the idea that apple certification is "more safe" seems like a joke to me). I fail to see the case for adversarialism, that you seem to clutch for.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> USB-IF does do their job, quite well. > It's the authoritarian mindset, it's Apple-istic to demand there be some strict top-down system demanding compliance, collecting money, and relentlessly pursuing everyone else legally. A manufacturer that makes its devices refuse to work with products that do not comply with _standards_, set by an organisation that defines them, but refuses to enforce them, is now authoritarian. > Building this world where authority & control are wired in everywhere, where we use the state & the legal system to hunt down & enforce folks on a narrow prescribed track sounds awful. This is already happening, market and nation wide, and I'm glad it does. This is not an Apple thing. There must be some control and enforcement over safety and functional standards. If you want your house to be in good standing with the state, you cannot use any sort of electricity cable for in-wall installations, or any sort of pipes for your drinking water. You could always leave if you don't agree with these rules, as you could choose not to buy Apple too. Another point is that the market does not self regulate. That's the same stupid idea that has been disproven so many times, I'm surprised any sane person would still believe in it. Markets care more about efficiency at making money, than safety. There are countless examples of large companies weighting between safety and profits, and they choose profits every single time, because for most, in the long run, is worth it. But overall, your position is not that of the common folk anyway. You talk about reviewers, and markets, and insist that nothing is a "risk", even when it is your belief against actual recall numbers. Maybe you should ask yourself if most people who buy their charging cables at gas stations are doing their "own research".