For USB, if it can carry 65W+ of power to my laptop as well as the Keyboard/Mouse inputs, 4K/60Hz display and audio back to the monitor as well as KB/Mouse and perhaps some external storage or network adapter, that's a pretty amazing cable.
I also have preferences between my cables by the quality and aesthetic, I prefer some over others because they look or feel nicer even if in testing they contain the same conductors, but that's just ... me.
I currently have 3 such cables connected to my work laptop each sending 4K/60Hz video to each of my 3 x 4k monitors, audio to my soundbar and one of them is powering the laptop at 90W and sending my keyboard, mouse and webcam inputs back.
Generally no, you're far more likely to get something that DOESN'T do what's asvertised in my experience.
You can almost always tell the second it's in your hand; in order to do the high throughput stuff, 20Gb, 40Gb etc, the wire is much thicker and stiffer, it needs conductors for all of those contacts. Ive never counted but it's something like 20 of them vs 4 in a standard cable.
Of course always C to C; the A connectors with the extra contacts in between the normal USB 2 ones still aren't enough.
I have a cheaper version, it does basically all one needs by telling you how many conductors the cable has, if it's only got 4 lights lit up it's a simple USB2, more power LEDs is a higher power charging cable, more data pairs, higher data throughput/USB3, nearly all of the lights (usually bar 1 of the CCX) it's full DP/Thunderbot, data, charging, A/V etc.
Sometimes it even shows USB-C connectors that are only wired for one orientation!
I don't group exactly, nor do I want to de-duplicate, but I've organised my boxes on the shelf and sorted and labelled them recently, in what seems the most logical way at the time; I have "networking", "USB", "power", "A/V", "PC" and some as of yet unlabelled ones with random stuff I can't place in the others.
There is some unfortunate crossover regarding where things belong because some USB are for power, some are for A/V etc, others or data...
What I realised, when going through these boxes was two things; it would cost a fortune to replace all of the cables in them, I wouldn't be surprised if replacement cost ran into the low thousands of £££ (should they be on my home insurance?!) and secondly; I'm no longer indecisive about what to do with a frayed or otherwise non-ideal cable, it goes straight in the bin; I used to retain the "nicer" ones and solder new connectors if the microUSB had worn out, or the cable was damaged near the end, that got much harder with USB-C unless I'm going for a simple +/-/D+/D-, so I just don't bother.
As for how often they're used; the USB box comes out almost daily, sometimes several times a day, if I'm charging things in my home office, or connecting something that isn't permanently plugged at my desk, I put the cables back away when I'm done. Power comes out every few weeks, and "networking" only when I need to reorganise things in the network cabinet/server rack.
For USB, the "final form" would be to create a labelling system so I can tell at a glance what each one supports, because as it stands I have to pull out my little LED cable tester thing and see how many light up to know if it'll do DP or high power charging etc.
Perhaps people missed that, and would like to start a new discussion?
It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic, perhaps we should give out tickets to the event in the future to ensure no-one misses their opportunity to join the discourse?
Reposts is one thing, but the person I replied to was gatekeeping the discussion.
If the post is flagged, that does the job of solving that for us, but telling people not to start a discussion on a subject "because we've been there before" is S tier gatekeeping, and that's what I was opposing.
There are some HN commenters that try to do this on a regular basis, either trying to prevent discussion, redirect it or get it moved to another thread
It's quite strange to submit something that obviously isn't going to get any discussion, this is a _news aggregator_ not a "discussion aggregator", only to see the same commenter repeatedly leave some asinine comment about "duplication"
This submission is not a "[dupe]" as in "duplicate URL". As one can clearly see here:
So what's the big deal. If it isn't interesting then it will be ignored, right
As it happens, submissions that cover a topic also covered by other submissions routinely get upvotes and even promoted to page one, as with this one
It is not clear what these "gatekeepers" are hoping to accomplish, but something is getting to them and it probably isn't HN. For example, the previous discussion of this CJEU decision veered off on tangents having nothing to do with the decision. To suggest there is no comment one could make now that was not in the previous thread is laughable. That thread contained almost zero commentary about the decision itself. Perhaps the "gatekeepers" do not like the nature of the commentary they are seeing. Who knows
HN voters, e.g., this submission already has 418 points, and other commenters who have been "touching grass" and are not bothered by the repetitive nature of HN, greatly outnumber these gatekeepers
Neverthless, their quest to quash or redirect discussion for whatever reason, and it's reasonable to question whether it is truly "duplication", may succeed, at least temporarily, as "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"
This submission will probably get ejected from page one soon
But it stands to reason that HN is much more than the noisiest HN commenters
Totally agree. I don't check HN every day, some days I'm too busy, and I don't check on weekends, there are lots of topics I might be interested in, including this one, but missed, including this one, and welcome it coming up again if it's still relevant/ongoing (like this one).
I'd argue, as I think you are, that the repost rule doesn't even really apply here cause as you say, it's not a dupe link, AND it adds commentary.
It's "ok" _because_ the credits can't be turned back into cash (thanks to their TOS).
If some business tried some clever scheme where they offer this "interest" on credits that _can_ be turned back into cash, they'd be breaking the law and would need a banking license, it's already covered.
I think you’re oversimplifying it. “They can’t be redeemed for cash” isn’t a universal legal test. Financial regulation generally looks at the substance of the product. Otherwise every company could sidestep banking and payments rules by calling customer balances “credits.”
Now let’s go full circle back to the original point. I don’t think it’s surprising that a company paying interest on credits may face more paperwork and rules for what is truly a gimmick that most large customers will never even care about. Which was my only point and I think the plot has gotten lost as this keeps going deeper.
I think there was an original "given" which was that in the US, (where I assume this is), these "credits" don't complicate anything nor create any regulatory burden.
That's not to say in the EU, or the UK (where I am) the case isn't different; but if it _were_ the same as the US, I can totally see why that's fine.
We have loyalty programs, a coffee shop gives you "credit" when you get stamps for your 6th coffee free etc, none of that seems to complicate matters... all because of the key point "it can't be turned back into cash".
EDIT: I would add, in the hope of further supporting my argument, that many places that offer loyalty and discount schemes, their ToS explicitly states that it's "not exchangeable" and "has no cash value", which would support my point (at least in the UK).
You started by telling me I was overcomplicating it, but I think you also missed the context of the thread. The original post was specifically about why they decided not to do this in the EU because it created additional regulatory overhead.
My only point from the beginning has been that this isn’t surprising. If paying interest on prepaid customer balances were legally trivial just because they’re called “credits” or have “no cash value,” companies could structure around those rules very easily. That’s why I questioned whether “can’t be redeemed for cash” was actually the legal test.
The loyalty points example is a different product entirely. Even for the linked company I imagine the only reason they do this is a fun marketing angle for winning a finance customer.
> The original post was specifically about why they decided not to do this in the EU because it created additional regulatory overhead
Yes, but I'm not convinced they mean what they're saying, I took that to mean they were trying to do this as _real_ interest.
> If paying interest on prepaid customer balances were legally trivial just because they’re called “credits” or have “no cash value,” companies could structure around those rules very easily
I still stand by my argument, I think it's only "interest" in name; from a banking or financial perspective it isn't. I don't see why it's any different to a company just setting a number in your account. Say I run a SaaS and give you £1000 credit, is that bound by the financial regulations? I don't think so.
If you put a single £10 credit on your balance and I offer to give you "10,000%" "interest" to top it up in credit for my service, I don't think that does either; the wording doesn't suddenly make it covered by financial regulation, it's whether it's _real_ money or not.
Credits on a service, whatever it is, isn't real money, and as long as the ToS doesn't let you turn it into real money, there's nothing complicated to worry about, but if the org _does_ let you turn it into real money, it suddenly becomes covered by financial regulation.
I'm just debating here, I'm not saying I know this to be true, I just think it make sense (to me).
I think we’re actually debating a narrower point than you think.
I agree that simply calling something “interest” doesn’t magically make it a regulated financial product. My disagreement is with the idea that “can’t be redeemed for cash” is the dispositive test. Regulators generally look at the substance of the arrangement, not just the label.
Also, your £1,000 credit example isn’t really analogous to the original post. If you simply gift me £1,000 of service credits, that’s very different from me prepaying £1,000 of my own money and you then paying me a return based on how long that prepaid balance sits with you.
The original discussion wasn’t “are loyalty points regulated?” It was “why would paying a return on prepaid customer balances create more regulatory work in the EU?” To me, the answer “because regulators care about products that start looking financially deposit-like” seems entirely plausible.
> because regulators care about products that start looking financially deposit-like
I totally agree with this point, but I don't see how the topic we're discussing would be seen that way.
From a "common sense" point of view (which I know, financial regulation is absolutely not), no matter what you call this act of giving someone extra credit (let's call it "interest") for your service based on the amount they've previously paid for your service (let's call it "deposited"), you're still just giving them monopoly money that serves a single purpose and that is to use more of your service.
If they can't turn it into cash, why should any financial authority care? It's got nothing to do with them.
That said, to take your side for a moment, what's to stop me depositing boat loads of cash up front to pay for your service using the "interest" you'll give me, rather than paying it regularly out of company earnings? Now it starts to sound like something a financial authority might take interest in (pun intended).
My only point from the start was that I’m not surprised the EU imposes extra compliance here. Once you’re incentivizing customers to leave prepaid funds with you in exchange for a return, it’s reasonable that regulators would take a closer look.
Whether they ultimately regulate it as deposits, e-money, or something else is for the lawyers. I was never arguing that “credits paying interest” automatically makes you a bank. Simply put it’s not surprising you would have to go through extra hurdles for this kind of gimmick.
I think you are taking this a bit too far. I don’t think it’s shocking that even credits which have a dollar value would need to pass a smell test.
I still have my OnePlus 9 Pro, sadly I smashed the screen on day 2. Despite the broken screen it still feels and looks like a more premium device than my Pixel 9 Pro XL in terms of hardware, but the software really went down hill after the switch to the OPPO software.
Now I want rid of the pixel because they destroyed battery life with an update in march they've still not fixed.
The software is the differentiator these days with all the flagship hardware being basically the same.
I would love to de-Google, but I need my banking apps, tap-to-pay and Android Auto and a top-quality camera that just works flawlessly.
If Graphene can do all of those I'll move, but the friction is high, I have passkeys and apps that have to be "migrated" such as banking apps, and various other stuff that is nigh impossible without a second device.
As someone who was a big OnePlus fan from the 3 era to the 9 Pro, I saw the decline, I moved over when Nexus died, and had used a mixed bag before then.
OnePlus was on the decline and it was clear it wouldn't be a contender for much longer here in the UK, especially when they merged OSs with the OPPO (?) OS, and software quality went through the floor. I moved to Pixels and currently have a Pixel 9 Pro XL which I'm looking to change as they destroyed the battery life with the march update and it still hasn't been resolved. The Pixel has been solid otherwise and performance is still excellent, but I can't abide having my phone entering battery saver every day by late afternoon.
Nothing(TM) looks like it could be a decent choice, but they're generally weak hardware compared to a 9 Pro XL class device, and I'm not a fan of Samsung any more as a company, though it seems a S2X Ultra might be the only real option.
Where OnePlus excelled over Pixels (at least at one point in time; I've owned both and gone back to Pixel) was that the OnePlus' beefier hardware meant that the camera startup time and autofocus speed was much faster. The cameras were comparable, but pulling out your Pixel and having a noticeable delay between double-tapping your hardware button and actually being able to take a decent picture was painful. OnePlus solved this with their camera software and beefier specs.
Somewhere along the way, the Pixel caught up, and the other quirks of the OnePlus diminished the relative benefit (I recall having some issues with their Android variant, and their charging system not actually following the USB-C spec in a way that was causing me issues). As someone who generally doesn't care about smartphone specs aside from "can it last all day?" and "can I take decent pictures without giving it much thought" the OnePlus line was briefly a great option, but hasn't done anything to make me want to try another one in a decade now.
I can't speak much to other flagship phones; I'll never own an Apple product and my experiences with Samsung's software across other devices means I'll likely never consider them either.
Nothing(TM) looks like it could be a decent choice, but they're generally weak hardware compared to a 9 Pro XL class device, and I'm not a fan of Samsung any more as a company, though it seems a S2X Ultra might be the only real option.
Even the Nothing Phone (4a) Pro is getting close to the price of an S26 here and the S26 will absolutely blow it out of the water when it comes to pretty much every facet of the hardware.
Pixel 9/10 Pro XL is a midrange SoC sold at flagship prices. Even the A57, which is a midrange Samsung model that will soon hit 350 Euro is faster single core than the Pixel 9 Pro and on par multi-core. Also has better battery life and despite only being 0.1" smaller weighs 42g less and is much thinner. Gets supported for 6 years and also gets monthly updates. Also doesn't die frequently with spicy pillows, camera bars that drop off, etc.
I still buy Pixels because it has an unlockable bootloader and can run GrapheneOS, but Google's pricing is insane and I wish that they would go back to the old price points. The 10a is the only Pixel with somewhat reasonable pricing for what it provides, but unfortunately they made the hardware differences larger than in the past (e.g. be not upgrading to the latest Tensor SoC).
You need to click the 3 dot menu and select "open in <browser of choice>", then you can switch apps normally as you'd expect and it'll be a tab in your browser like usual.
I also have preferences between my cables by the quality and aesthetic, I prefer some over others because they look or feel nicer even if in testing they contain the same conductors, but that's just ... me.
I currently have 3 such cables connected to my work laptop each sending 4K/60Hz video to each of my 3 x 4k monitors, audio to my soundbar and one of them is powering the laptop at 90W and sending my keyboard, mouse and webcam inputs back.
reply