I mean, Apple has been selling USB-C cables ever since they transitioned MacBooks to use Thunderbolt ports in 2016. And yes, they are expensive. But the whole point of standardized cables is that Apple may sell them for $100 if they want to, there will be others who will sell it for a reasonable price and Apple can't hold you hostage with their proprietary connector.
I have seen toothbrushes with USB-C, they just connect to the docking station. Which makes sense IMO, you wouldn't want to plug and unplug your toothbrush every time you want to use it.
USB-C doesn't have speeds, it's just a connector type. USB 1, 2, 3-3.2, 4 etc. is the protocol responsible for speed. You can have a USB-C connector with any implementation (except maybe USB 1). It can even do DisplayPort stuff.
So for USB-C to become irrelevant we need to come up with a better connector form factor. Which is unlikely to happen soon. But also, same thing happened with USB-B Micro connector (colloquially called micro USB), it was designated as a standard (but Apple managed to get an exemption) and manufacturers had no issues moving to a better connector, which is USB-C.
Nothing special, just that they are the primary poster on 196 and the reason it shows up on All.
Yeah, if we could also convince Track_Shovel to stop posting to 196, that would be great.
You don't need to go anywhere, apparently, any comment on any instance that federates with blahaj already grants you a participation ticket.
Oh so corndogs do have hotdogs in them. Good to know. I thought it was some weird bread thing.
Oh, I know this guy. He used to be a presenter on that science channel on YouTube like 10 years ago. Forgot the name of the channel, but the other hosts were Laci Green and Trace Dominguez.
Edit: The channel was called DNews, now renamed to Seeker.
I have also been banned from specifically 196 for a comment on a completely different instance. Reason: Transphobe. Because I was asking questions.
And it's kind of annoying that when I scroll through the feed, upvote a post and get an error. Oh it's a blahaj post... Sometimes I realize after I've finished writing a comment and can't send it.
Excluding moves just because they are not very good goes completely against the spirit of this post.
Blacks can both defend and checkmate in one move.
It's a mate in 1. Bishop takes Knight c5, checkmate.
In that case it's quintuple fork, cause 2 pawns are threatened.
Sure, but we aren't talking about bursts speeds. We are talking about sustained cruising speeds. I've responded to a similar comment of yours in more detail in another branch.
I specifically didn't mention overclocking because then there is no defined top speed. Depending on the binning, a CPU can be pushed arbitrarily far. If you provide proper cooling it can be sustained relatively indefinitely, but you still wouldn't do that all the time because energy efficiency tanks. That 10-20% performance usually isn't worth the added 100% power draw.
This argument hinges on the definition of "top speed". Is top speed what's written on the speedometer and what the device is designed for, or is it the max speed it can go before it explodes? I think, in this context we are talking about is max sustained speed/performance, judging by the fact that neither the human or the Enterprise have died/exploded. While devices are often designed to and perform at their "top speed", people can't for reasons other than inefficiency.
You can't just eat more and work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. But you can and often do run equipment at it's top rated performance because it doesn't have emotions.
We could stretch the analogy and assume emotions to be a separate kind of fuel reserve, but I don't know if this simplification does justice to the complexity of human nature.
The principle applies to pretty much all equipment. A CPU will happily sit at 100-ish% utilization for years (if there are no thermal constraints), because it can't have an emotional breakdown.
Well, maybe it can, that would certainly explain a couple of cases that I have had...
Warp speeds were clearly modeled to mimick knots. And I'm sure that the lore reason for them not traveling at Enterprise's top speed all the time is again fuel efficiency and not because it would "blow up" (although 9.9 might be above its rated top speed, I don't remember). So it doesn't hold up with people, where you can just eat more and perform at your best all the time, we have additional emotional constraints that don't apply to equipment.
Other than all that... perfect analogy.