Many mainland Chinese are using a message app called WeChat. You can do a lot more thing than WhatsApp or iMessage. People can put money in their WeChat account and e-transfer money to other or use it to pay for services and buy things online.
So preemptive to stop using digital yuan in US is actually a good thing.
Agreed. The author is coming from an ideology not consistent with real life.
Would also be great if USA based companies were restricted from investing hundreds of billions of dollars into countries that hates the USA.
Correction. What you really want to say is "Would also be great if USA based companies were restricted from investing hundreds of billions of dollars into countries that the USA hates."
That’s not correction. That’s a falsehood and distortion.
The original intent was to point out that USA based companies should not be investing hundreds of billions into funding countries thst hate the USA - such as China.
Learn to read and comprehend.
It seems by contradicting him you imply that USA loves those countries who hate USA. How much different is his statement from yours?
The article states that the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was dissolved in 1995 as being wasteful.
That is a fact, but just to add to it a little bit: The office was killed as part of the Republican Party takeover of the House of Representatives that year after winning a majority in the 1994 midterms. House Republicans saw the OTA as, "as duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party. During the 1994 elections, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R–GA) vowed to kill the office if his party took control of Congress, which it did. At the time of OTA's dismantling in 1995, it had about 140 staffers and a budget of roughly $21 million." (Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/house-democrats-move-resurrect-congress-s-science-advisory-office)
I'll stop there, but just wanted to be clear who is to blame for the OTA's disappearance. As that article states, current House Democrats are trying to bring the office back.
There once was a very fat radio personally on the right who made fun of the Internet, Wind and Solar Power his minions followed along he’s gone and they aren’t laughing anymore, however they do still laugh at High Speed Rail the rest of the world doesn’t.
That was a very interesting video. Of course, when you have an authoritarian government you can get a lot done quickly. Seriously, the sad thing is we really do have the resources to have nice things like that too, but our political system is so tied in knots that it prevents anything like these projects from happening here.
The article states that the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was dissolved in 1995 as being wasteful.
That is a fact, but just to add to it a little bit: The office was killed as part of the Republican Party takeover of the House of Representatives that year after winning a majority in the 1994 midterms. House Republicans saw the OTA as, "as duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party. During the 1994 elections, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R–GA) vowed to kill the office if his party took control of Congress, which it did. At the time of OTA's dismantling in 1995, it had about 140 staffers and a budget of roughly $21 million." (Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/house-democrats-move-resurrect-congress-s-science-advisory-office)
I'll stop there, but just wanted to be clear who is to blame for the OTA's disappearance. As that article states, current House Democrats are trying to bring the office back.
There once was a very fat radio personally on the right who made fun of the Internet, Wind and Solar Power his minions followed along he’s gone and they aren’t laughing anymore, however they do still laugh at High Speed Rail the rest of the world doesn’t.
That was a very interesting video. Of course, when you have an authoritarian government you can get a lot done quickly. Seriously, the sad thing is we really do have the resources to have nice things like that too, but our political system is so tied in knots that it prevents anything like these projects from happening here.
All these mega projects require a lot of steel. China produces almost half of steel in the world. China needs to thank Mao promoting steel production by all people in the 1950s. It has been mocked by many anti-Maos.
"Of course, tech illiteracy isn't exclusive to the U.S. The European Union, for example, is pushing toward a mandate to require all devices use a USB-C port. The major problem there is that enshrining a specific piece of technology into law doesn't account for the pace of advancement."
To be fair, the EU proposal does not have technology at its core so technological advancement is irrelevant.
It is about e-waste and making life easier for consumers:
... All in all, and seen for what they were designed for, these proposals are aiming to tackle far more than the notion of technology for the sake of technology. It is more about harmonisation across industry, consumer protection and the environment.
I'm all for the standardization, as it makes it easier for users as long as they mandate the protocols as well, but I have hard time believing this will reduce e-waste, and with USB as it is, it may not make life easier either. They really need to create a standard or policy that power plugs and cables are easily recyclable, that recycling is part of a product's life cycle, encourage companies not to ship chargers and cables in the box, and have a recycling tax. If they are really serious, they should have a policy that every product OEM should have a closed loop supply chain process with their products.
Otherwise, I think all the policy does is create the same amount of e-waste as the alternate timeline (1), with the only difference being the cables and devices having the same ports and plugs instead of different ones. Not sure what they are going to do with the 10 or so not-so-compatible USBC cables of varying protocols. This alone will prevent saving of e-waste, and make it harder for users. There's like a 5! matrix of USBC cabling now: USB2, USB3, USB3.1, USB3.2 gen1, USB3.2, gen2, USB4 2x2 USB4 3x2, and USB-PD protocols at 5 -> 100, 180, 240 Watts that can be mixed and matched with the data protocols. And, the cables also have alternate modes that they can optionally support. HDMI, DisplayPort, TB, each with their own generations.
So in the end, I think the EU policy is just going to end up in the same spot on both ends: just as much e-waste and ease-of-use possibly more vexing. If the the ultimate outcome they want is less e-waste, mandate it by saying OEMs have to have recycling process for the products they sell, and tax it so there is less product out there.
(1) The alternate timeline of "no standard" will be 95% similar in terms of e-waste because the industry is standardizing with USBC anyways.
The article states that the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was dissolved in 1995 as being wasteful.
That is a fact, but just to add to it a little bit: The office was killed as part of the Republican Party takeover of the House of Representatives that year after winning a majority in the 1994 midterms. House Republicans saw the OTA as, "as duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party. During the 1994 elections, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R–GA) vowed to kill the office if his party took control of Congress, which it did. At the time of OTA's dismantling in 1995, it had about 140 staffers and a budget of roughly $21 million." (Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/house-democrats-move-resurrect-congress-s-science-advisory-office)
I'll stop there, but just wanted to be clear who is to blame for the OTA's disappearance. As that article states, current House Democrats are trying to bring the office back.
There once was a very fat radio personally on the right who made fun of the Internet, Wind and Solar Power his minions followed along he’s gone and they aren’t laughing anymore, however they do still laugh at High Speed Rail the rest of the world doesn’t.
That was a very interesting video. Of course, when you have an authoritarian government you can get a lot done quickly. Seriously, the sad thing is we really do have the resources to have nice things like that too, but our political system is so tied in knots that it prevents anything like these projects from happening here.
France had some trouble with some towns who didn’t want High Speed Rail, they built thru them without leaving a station (guest who was crying afterwards).
In the eastern Central Valley in California most of the conservative counties were against High Speed Rail (still are), however they made sure the state moved the original route from the western Central Valley to the eastern part.
"Of course, tech illiteracy isn't exclusive to the U.S. The European Union, for example, is pushing toward a mandate to require all devices use a USB-C port. The major problem there is that enshrining a specific piece of technology into law doesn't account for the pace of advancement."
To be fair, the EU proposal does not have technology at its core so technological advancement is irrelevant.
It is about e-waste and making life easier for consumers:
... All in all, and seen for what they were designed for, these proposals are aiming to tackle far more than the notion of technology for the sake of technology. It is more about harmonisation across industry, consumer protection and the environment.
I'm all for the standardization, as it makes it easier for users as long as they mandate the protocols as well, but I have hard time believing this will reduce e-waste, and with USB as it is, it may not make life easier either. They really need to create a standard or policy that power plugs and cables are easily recyclable, that recycling is part of a product's life cycle, encourage companies not to ship chargers and cables in the box, and have a recycling tax. If they are really serious, they should have a policy that every product OEM should have a closed loop supply chain process with their products.
Otherwise, I think all the policy does is create the same amount of e-waste as the alternate timeline (1), with the only difference being the cables and devices having the same ports and plugs instead of different ones. Not sure what they are going to do with the 10 or so not-so-compatible USBC cables of varying protocols. This alone will prevent saving of e-waste, and make it harder for users. There's like a 5! matrix of USBC cabling now: USB2, USB3, USB3.1, USB3.2 gen1, USB3.2, gen2, USB4 2x2 USB4 3x2, and USB-PD protocols at 5 -> 100, 180, 240 Watts that can be mixed and matched with the data protocols. And, the cables also have alternate modes that they can optionally support. HDMI, DisplayPort, TB, each with their own generations.
So in the end, I think the EU policy is just going to end up in the same spot on both ends: just as much e-waste and ease-of-use possibly more vexing. If the the ultimate outcome they want is less e-waste, mandate it by saying OEMs have to have recycling process for the products they sell, and tax it so there is less product out there.
(1) The alternate timeline of "no standard" will be 95% similar in terms of e-waste because the industry is standardizing with USBC anyways.
90% of what you mention is already in existing legislation (WEEE, RoHS,...) or planned in the proposals that are being piped through the system right now. That includes things like design for repair and making things easier to recycle. That last issue has been developing over the last few decades. For example, it is why TVs and monitors began shipping with less labels stuck on them and more information was embossed into the plastics.
A lot of it is detailed in the links I provided and also includes clear labeling of chargers/cables to make things easier for consumers.
The us government should be dissolved we need to start over from scratch.
Yes, but that would never happen in a million years. It would be hell just trying to amend the constitution with a single change.
I understand your point, but a million years is a very long long time. 1000 years? Also a very long time. Very few political states lasted that long, not even Rome, China, Egyptian, what have you, without a dissolution and do-over. 500 years? The USA lasting another 300 years? Hmm. You will have to game it out.
The southeast USA will be a sub-tropical to tropical climate in 300 years. The southwest will be even more dry. The pacific northwest will be like southwest. Similarly, that nice midwestern and northeastern climate will be hotter, more humid like the American southeast. People seem to push it off as it's just a little change in temperature, but it's a change involving every facet of life. The corn belt won't be growing corn. California won't be growing the same fruit and nuts. The cattle won't be the same. People's behavior will change just due to the change in temperature. Hard to be a modern western nation in subtropical to tropical climates just from lost productivity alone. It's a structural change of the environment and very few cultures and states survive that, if any.
There's a real chance that the USA will dissolve in 300 years. This probably is not what lavenderfields meant by "start over from scratch" though.
"Of course, tech illiteracy isn't exclusive to the U.S. The European Union, for example, is pushing toward a mandate to require all devices use a USB-C port. The major problem there is that enshrining a specific piece of technology into law doesn't account for the pace of advancement."
To be fair, the EU proposal does not have technology at its core so technological advancement is irrelevant.
It is about e-waste and making life easier for consumers:
... All in all, and seen for what they were designed for, these proposals are aiming to tackle far more than the notion of technology for the sake of technology. It is more about harmonisation across industry, consumer protection and the environment.
I'm all for the standardization, as it makes it easier for users as long as they mandate the protocols as well, but I have hard time believing this will reduce e-waste, and with USB as it is, it may not make life easier either. They really need to create a standard or policy that power plugs and cables are easily recyclable, that recycling is part of a product's life cycle, encourage companies not to ship chargers and cables in the box, and have a recycling tax. If they are really serious, they should have a policy that every product OEM should have a closed loop supply chain process with their products.
Otherwise, I think all the policy does is create the same amount of e-waste as the alternate timeline (1), with the only difference being the cables and devices having the same ports and plugs instead of different ones. Not sure what they are going to do with the 10 or so not-so-compatible USBC cables of varying protocols. This alone will prevent saving of e-waste, and make it harder for users. There's like a 5! matrix of USBC cabling now: USB2, USB3, USB3.1, USB3.2 gen1, USB3.2, gen2, USB4 2x2 USB4 3x2, and USB-PD protocols at 5 -> 100, 180, 240 Watts that can be mixed and matched with the data protocols. And, the cables also have alternate modes that they can optionally support. HDMI, DisplayPort, TB, each with their own generations.
So in the end, I think the EU policy is just going to end up in the same spot on both ends: just as much e-waste and ease-of-use possibly more vexing. If the the ultimate outcome they want is less e-waste, mandate it by saying OEMs have to have recycling process for the products they sell, and tax it so there is less product out there.
(1) The alternate timeline of "no standard" will be 95% similar in terms of e-waste because the industry is standardizing with USBC anyways.
90% of what you mention is already in existing legislation (WEEE, RoHS,...) or planned in the proposals that are being piped through the system right now. That includes things like design for repair and making things easier to recycle. That last issue has been developing over the last few decades. For example, it is why TVs and monitors began shipping with less labels stuck on them and more information was embossed into the plastics.
A lot of it is detailed in the links I provided and also includes clear labeling of chargers/cables to make things easier for consumers.
I like the WEEE, but go further. The requirement should be on the company or OEM and not the member states to take back the product and have it recycled. Closed loop supply chain, et al. Or, there needs to be a tax to pay for the e-waste to actually be recycled, not dumped, but recycled by the state.
I don't think the labeling directives will do anything to combat the incompatible protocols that can use a USBC port. I think it is inevitable that people will have to keep specific cables for 100+ W charging, cables that support TB or DisplayPort or HDMI, cables that support 20/40 GB/s data, The superset cables that can do it all will inevitably be expensive, and that will drive sales of cheaper cables that only provide a subset of functionality. The wall warts will be like this too. People will want a 5 W, a 10 W, a 20 W, a 50 W and a 100+ W charger for all the right occasions, assuming the compatibility of volts and amps are there. Companies don't have to implement all USB-PD protocols, right?
One interesting way to attack this problem is to mandate that the AC/DC should be in the device. Gets rid of the charging brick, and dumbifies the power/charging cable. The AC/DC and electronic charging complexity stays inside the device where it could more easily refurbished, repaired and recycled, while the cable is just copper and insulation.
They need to continue with everything: outlaw the use of plastic packaging. Replace plastic with aluminum/glass where appropriate, plastic with paper where appropriate, plastic/rubber with fabric where appropriate. Not sure what can be done with insulation for wires.
"Of course, tech illiteracy isn't exclusive to the U.S. The European Union, for example, is pushing toward a mandate to require all devices use a USB-C port. The major problem there is that enshrining a specific piece of technology into law doesn't account for the pace of advancement."
To be fair, the EU proposal does not have technology at its core so technological advancement is irrelevant.
It is about e-waste and making life easier for consumers:
... All in all, and seen for what they were designed for, these proposals are aiming to tackle far more than the notion of technology for the sake of technology. It is more about harmonisation across industry, consumer protection and the environment.
I'm all for the standardization, as it makes it easier for users as long as they mandate the protocols as well, but I have hard time believing this will reduce e-waste, and with USB as it is, it may not make life easier either. They really need to create a standard or policy that power plugs and cables are easily recyclable, that recycling is part of a product's life cycle, encourage companies not to ship chargers and cables in the box, and have a recycling tax. If they are really serious, they should have a policy that every product OEM should have a closed loop supply chain process with their products.
Otherwise, I think all the policy does is create the same amount of e-waste as the alternate timeline (1), with the only difference being the cables and devices having the same ports and plugs instead of different ones. Not sure what they are going to do with the 10 or so not-so-compatible USBC cables of varying protocols. This alone will prevent saving of e-waste, and make it harder for users. There's like a 5! matrix of USBC cabling now: USB2, USB3, USB3.1, USB3.2 gen1, USB3.2, gen2, USB4 2x2 USB4 3x2, and USB-PD protocols at 5 -> 100, 180, 240 Watts that can be mixed and matched with the data protocols. And, the cables also have alternate modes that they can optionally support. HDMI, DisplayPort, TB, each with their own generations.
So in the end, I think the EU policy is just going to end up in the same spot on both ends: just as much e-waste and ease-of-use possibly more vexing. If the the ultimate outcome they want is less e-waste, mandate it by saying OEMs have to have recycling process for the products they sell, and tax it so there is less product out there.
(1) The alternate timeline of "no standard" will be 95% similar in terms of e-waste because the industry is standardizing with USBC anyways.
90% of what you mention is already in existing legislation (WEEE, RoHS,...) or planned in the proposals that are being piped through the system right now. That includes things like design for repair and making things easier to recycle. That last issue has been developing over the last few decades. For example, it is why TVs and monitors began shipping with less labels stuck on them and more information was embossed into the plastics.
A lot of it is detailed in the links I provided and also includes clear labeling of chargers/cables to make things easier for consumers.
I like the WEEE, but go further. The requirement should be on the company or OEM and not the member states to take back the product and have it recycled. Closed loop supply chain, et al. Or, there needs to be a tax to pay for the e-waste to actually be recycled, not dumped, but recycled by the state.
I don't think the labeling directives will do anything to combat the incompatible protocols that can use a USBC port. I think it is inevitable that people will have to keep specific cables for 100+ W charging, cables that support TB or DisplayPort or HDMI, cables that support 20/40 GB/s data, The superset cables that can do it all will inevitably be expensive, and that will drive sales of cheaper cables that only provide a subset of functionality. The wall warts will be like this too. People will want a 5 W, a 10 W, a 20 W, a 50 W and a 100+ W charger for all the right occasions, assuming the compatibility of volts and amps are there. Companies don't have to implement all USB-PD protocols, right?
One interesting way to attack this problem is to mandate that the AC/DC should be in the device. Gets rid of the charging brick, and dumbifies the power/charging cable. The AC/DC and electronic charging complexity stays inside the device where it could more easily refurbished, repaired and recycled, while the cable is just copper and insulation.
They need to continue with everything: outlaw the use of plastic packaging. Replace plastic with aluminum/glass where appropriate, plastic with paper where appropriate, plastic/rubber with fabric where appropriate. Not sure what can be done with insulation for wires.
WEEE is a collaborative effort that flows from manufacturer through wholesale and retail down to the consumer. Governments have transposed WEEE requirements into their national law and provide enforcement options.
The cost of recycling or safe disposal is already factored into the price of new electrical and electronic equipment and the consumer is not charged anything. There are legal requirements that have led to the creation of takeback programmes to channel old devices back for recycling and safe disposal.
The aim with the labeling for chargers and cables is specifically designed to put order into the current mess and make things easier for consumers but we'll have to see what comes of it.
If I could offer a contrarian view. First the examples cited here are extreme or driven by the author’s bias. For instance, just because a legislator introduces a bill it doesn’t mean it will pass. Also, stupid bills are not limited to tech. And why is looking at ways to stop China’s political ambitions necessarily Xenophobic? As for Europe looking to introduce a single power cable standard, the focus is on the proliferation of cables and their impact on climate. Beside if some guy can make his phone compatible with it then you would think Apple could too! Further there is very good work being done by some politicians. Here is an example in Illinois. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/30/opinion/illinois-biometric-data-privacy.html
Finally, the courts are coming around too and will hopefully limit big tech’s monopolies and privacy abuses further, including Apple’s (alleged) antitrust abuses. I look forward to installing Cydia in my iPhone in the next few years.
The us government should be dissolved we need to start over from scratch.
Yes, but that would never happen in a million years. It would be hell just trying to amend the constitution with a single change.
I understand your point, but a million years is a very long long time. 1000 years? Also a very long time. Very few political states lasted that long, not even Rome, China, Egyptian, what have you, without a dissolution and do-over. 500 years? The USA lasting another 300 years? Hmm. You will have to game it out.
The southeast USA will be a sub-tropical to tropical climate in 300 years. The southwest will be even more dry. The pacific northwest will be like southwest. Similarly, that nice midwestern and northeastern climate will be hotter, more humid like the American southeast. People seem to push it off as it's just a little change in temperature, but it's a change involving every facet of life. The corn belt won't be growing corn. California won't be growing the same fruit and nuts. The cattle won't be the same. People's behavior will change just due to the change in temperature. Hard to be a modern western nation in subtropical to tropical climates just from lost productivity alone. It's a structural change of the environment and very few cultures and states survive that, if any.
There's a real chance that the USA will dissolve in 300 years. This probably is not what lavenderfields meant by "start over from scratch" though.
Due to sea level rise Florida and Louisiana will be gone by the end of this century….
The article states that the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was dissolved in 1995 as being wasteful.
That is a fact, but just to add to it a little bit: The office was killed as part of the Republican Party takeover of the House of Representatives that year after winning a majority in the 1994 midterms. House Republicans saw the OTA as, "as duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party. During the 1994 elections, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R–GA) vowed to kill the office if his party took control of Congress, which it did. At the time of OTA's dismantling in 1995, it had about 140 staffers and a budget of roughly $21 million." (Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/house-democrats-move-resurrect-congress-s-science-advisory-office)
I'll stop there, but just wanted to be clear who is to blame for the OTA's disappearance. As that article states, current House Democrats are trying to bring the office back.
There once was a very fat radio personally on the right who made fun of the Internet, Wind and Solar Power his minions followed along he’s gone and they aren’t laughing anymore, however they do still laugh at High Speed Rail the rest of the world doesn’t.
That only looks at the surface. When you take a deeper look (China Has A Debt Problem Three Times Larger Than Evergrande) things aren't as good as they first appear. As for European high speed rail there is far more development within countries than between countries. The US once had the best standard rail system in the world but apathy and the trucking lobby effectively killed it.
Comments
How much different is his statement from yours?
Learn to think from other perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production
Otherwise, I think all the policy does is create the same amount of e-waste as the alternate timeline (1), with the only difference being the cables and devices having the same ports and plugs instead of different ones. Not sure what they are going to do with the 10 or so not-so-compatible USBC cables of varying protocols. This alone will prevent saving of e-waste, and make it harder for users. There's like a 5! matrix of USBC cabling now: USB2, USB3, USB3.1, USB3.2 gen1, USB3.2, gen2, USB4 2x2 USB4 3x2, and USB-PD protocols at 5 -> 100, 180, 240 Watts that can be mixed and matched with the data protocols. And, the cables also have alternate modes that they can optionally support. HDMI, DisplayPort, TB, each with their own generations.
So in the end, I think the EU policy is just going to end up in the same spot on both ends: just as much e-waste and ease-of-use possibly more vexing. If the the ultimate outcome they want is less e-waste, mandate it by saying OEMs have to have recycling process for the products they sell, and tax it so there is less product out there.
(1) The alternate timeline of "no standard" will be 95% similar in terms of e-waste because the industry is standardizing with USBC anyways.
France had some trouble with some towns who didn’t want High Speed Rail, they built thru them without leaving a station (guest who was crying afterwards).
In the eastern Central Valley in California most of the conservative counties were against High Speed Rail (still are), however they made sure the state moved the original route from the western Central Valley to the eastern part.
A lot of it is detailed in the links I provided and also includes clear labeling of chargers/cables to make things easier for consumers.
The southeast USA will be a sub-tropical to tropical climate in 300 years. The southwest will be even more dry. The pacific northwest will be like southwest. Similarly, that nice midwestern and northeastern climate will be hotter, more humid like the American southeast. People seem to push it off as it's just a little change in temperature, but it's a change involving every facet of life. The corn belt won't be growing corn. California won't be growing the same fruit and nuts. The cattle won't be the same. People's behavior will change just due to the change in temperature. Hard to be a modern western nation in subtropical to tropical climates just from lost productivity alone. It's a structural change of the environment and very few cultures and states survive that, if any.
There's a real chance that the USA will dissolve in 300 years. This probably is not what lavenderfields meant by "start over from scratch" though.
I don't think the labeling directives will do anything to combat the incompatible protocols that can use a USBC port. I think it is inevitable that people will have to keep specific cables for 100+ W charging, cables that support TB or DisplayPort or HDMI, cables that support 20/40 GB/s data, The superset cables that can do it all will inevitably be expensive, and that will drive sales of cheaper cables that only provide a subset of functionality. The wall warts will be like this too. People will want a 5 W, a 10 W, a 20 W, a 50 W and a 100+ W charger for all the right occasions, assuming the compatibility of volts and amps are there. Companies don't have to implement all USB-PD protocols, right?
One interesting way to attack this problem is to mandate that the AC/DC should be in the device. Gets rid of the charging brick, and dumbifies the power/charging cable. The AC/DC and electronic charging complexity stays inside the device where it could more easily refurbished, repaired and recycled, while the cable is just copper and insulation.
They need to continue with everything: outlaw the use of plastic packaging. Replace plastic with aluminum/glass where appropriate, plastic with paper where appropriate, plastic/rubber with fabric where appropriate. Not sure what can be done with insulation for wires.
The cost of recycling or safe disposal is already factored into the price of new electrical and electronic equipment and the consumer is not charged anything. There are legal requirements that have led to the creation of takeback programmes to channel old devices back for recycling and safe disposal.
This is Amazon UK's compliance statement:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GTF8EBR5DXBTVJJ8&dplnkId=3ae182fe-044e-4d08-9ac7-6d29c7c6bccd
The aim with the labeling for chargers and cables is specifically designed to put order into the current mess and make things easier for consumers but we'll have to see what comes of it.