4 ms·

You really dislike a feature that plays a loud sound instead of shorting pins in you USB-C connector together? Guess what is more annoying than a loud sound.

by atoav 3y ago

londons_explore 3y ago
I think the issue is that it triggers when there is even a tiny piece of dirt in there. Ie. the pins aren't shorted, but there is some damp particle of dust in there causing a 10 Megaohm connection which would do no harm whatsoever. Happens a lot for people who leave USB-C cables in the bottom of bags and they get dirt in the connector (and possibly the residue from that beer that exploded in your bag last year and the sugary water never quite evaporates)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
redcobra762 3y ago
What?? Those aren’t the only options, the other option is that the device operate correctly…
- atoav 3y ago
  I didn't claim there were two options. This function measures the voltage drop between two pins and plays a sound when it is too high. So it is possible: - to just not play a sound, and have it silently switch off the connector (this would feel like a broken cable to you, but at least wouldn't annoy) - that the threshold is not well adjusted. But this is not rocket science, but simple Ohms law stuff, so I doubt this is the problem - you could just not have that protection and live with what happens to the IC inside when those pins are shorted. That could be any number of things, most of them more annoying than a sound Unless you want to change basic laws of physics or the USB-C spec these are the options.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    You actually did claim there were two options in the comment I replied to by saying: > You really dislike a feature that plays a loud sound instead of shorting pins in you USB-C connector together? The instead here splits the sentence into those two options. Either a sound is played loudly or pins are shorted. That's how the sentence you wrote is structured, anyway. Clearly that's not how you considered the situation, but yes, you did claim there were two options.

You really dislike a feature that plays a loud sound instead of shorting pins in you USB-C connector together? Guess what is more annoying than a loud sound.

by atoav 3y ago

You really dislike a feature that plays a loud sound instead of shorting pins in you USB-C connector together? Guess what is more annoying than a loud sound.

londons_explore 3y ago

I think the issue is that it triggers when there is even a tiny piece of dirt in there. Ie. the pins aren't shorted, but there is some damp particle of dust in there causing a 10 Megaohm connection which would do no harm whatsoever. Happens a lot for people who leave USB-C cables in the bottom of bags and they get dirt in the connector (and possibly the residue from that beer that exploded in your bag last year and the sugary water never quite evaporates)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

redcobra762 3y ago

What?? Those aren’t the only options, the other option is that the device operate correctly…

atoav 3y ago
I didn't claim there were two options. This function measures the voltage drop between two pins and plays a sound when it is too high. So it is possible: - to just not play a sound, and have it silently switch off the connector (this would feel like a broken cable to you, but at least wouldn't annoy) - that the threshold is not well adjusted. But this is not rocket science, but simple Ohms law stuff, so I doubt this is the problem - you could just not have that protection and live with what happens to the IC inside when those pins are shorted. That could be any number of things, most of them more annoying than a sound Unless you want to change basic laws of physics or the USB-C spec these are the options.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  You actually did claim there were two options in the comment I replied to by saying: > You really dislike a feature that plays a loud sound instead of shorting pins in you USB-C connector together? The instead here splits the sentence into those two options. Either a sound is played loudly or pins are shorted. That's how the sentence you wrote is structured, anyway. Clearly that's not how you considered the situation, but yes, you did claim there were two options.