β² 491 βΌ just robot stuff (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 day ago by sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world 36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 22 hours ago (5 children) WD-40 is a cleaner and not a lubricant, this is the equivalent of using soap. Female USB A cables are explicitly forbidden in the USB A spec, so this is some very specific, possibly illegal, fetish. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [β] kungen@feddit.nu 9 points 17 hours ago Female USB-A cables were still common enough that we've learned to accept it. It could be a lot worse. Imagine seeing your robot looking at male-to-male power cables. Call me old-fashioned, but that's where I draw the line, no robot of mine would have such extreme tastes. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Efflixi@lemmy.world 27 points 21 hours ago (6 children) I have at least a dozen USB A extension cables at work that supposedly don't exist then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [β] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 hours ago* *shouldn't exist. I'm the same with adaptors though. permalink fedilink source parent [β] fartographer@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago You fucking criminal permalink fedilink source parent [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* So wrong. So dirty. permalink fedilink source parent [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago I've got a webcam plugged into a daisy chain of USB A extension cables 15 feet (4.5 meters) long across a room. Works fine, surprisingly. permalink fedilink source parent [β] diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 21 hours ago USB-IF thinks they don't, yes. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago Also I have on more than one occasion used soap as lube out of desperation. I do not recommend. permalink fedilink source parent [β] sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works [S] 17 points 20 hours ago Female USB A cables are explicitly forbidden in the USB A spec, so this is some very specific, possibly illegal, fetish. Sickening permalink fedilink source parent [β] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Wait, the female end on the cables isn't allowed? I've definitely had USB A extension cables permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 4 points 21 hours ago Idk how many people Iβve had to tell in the last ~30 years that itβs an astringent and not a lube. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] kungen@feddit.nu 9 points 17 hours ago Female USB-A cables were still common enough that we've learned to accept it. It could be a lot worse. Imagine seeing your robot looking at male-to-male power cables. Call me old-fashioned, but that's where I draw the line, no robot of mine would have such extreme tastes. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Efflixi@lemmy.world 27 points 21 hours ago (6 children) I have at least a dozen USB A extension cables at work that supposedly don't exist then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [β] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 hours ago* *shouldn't exist. I'm the same with adaptors though. permalink fedilink source parent [β] fartographer@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago You fucking criminal permalink fedilink source parent [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* So wrong. So dirty. permalink fedilink source parent [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago I've got a webcam plugged into a daisy chain of USB A extension cables 15 feet (4.5 meters) long across a room. Works fine, surprisingly. permalink fedilink source parent [β] diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 21 hours ago USB-IF thinks they don't, yes. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago Also I have on more than one occasion used soap as lube out of desperation. I do not recommend. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 hours ago* *shouldn't exist. I'm the same with adaptors though. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] fartographer@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago You fucking criminal permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* So wrong. So dirty. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago* So wrong. So dirty. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago I've got a webcam plugged into a daisy chain of USB A extension cables 15 feet (4.5 meters) long across a room. Works fine, surprisingly. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 21 hours ago USB-IF thinks they don't, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago Also I have on more than one occasion used soap as lube out of desperation. I do not recommend. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works [S] 17 points 20 hours ago Female USB A cables are explicitly forbidden in the USB A spec, so this is some very specific, possibly illegal, fetish. Sickening permalink fedilink source parent
[β] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 21 hours ago (1 child) Wait, the female end on the cables isn't allowed? I've definitely had USB A extension cables permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 20 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 4 points 21 hours ago Idk how many people Iβve had to tell in the last ~30 years that itβs an astringent and not a lube. permalink fedilink source parent
