tmay

rinosaur said:

baconstang said:

"It respects natural immunity which appears to be all but ignored now."  

Oh, that's the kind of immunity that 90+% of hospitalized Covid patients have, correct?

No it’s the immunity after you’ve had it that’s up to 27x better than the vax. 

In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated.  The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

Additionally, a second publication from MMWR shows vaccines prevented COVID-19 related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. As cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise, the data in today’s MMWR reinforce that COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines remain safe and effective. They prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Additionally, even among the uncommon cases of COVID-19 among the fully or partially vaccinated vaccines make people more likely to have a milder and shorter illness compared to those who are unvaccinated. CDC continues to recommend everyone 12 and older get vaccinated against COVID-19.

No it’s the immunity after you’ve had it that’s up to 27x better than the vax.

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

fastasleep said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world.  And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers.  Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.

Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.

"Wrong again".  USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?

You're the one that is wrong George.

Not the first USB name change

This isn't the first time USB names have shifted. USB 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were absorbed into USB 2.0. When USB 3.1 showed up, USB 3.0 suddenly became USB 3.1 Gen 1, and the newer standard received the label USB 3.1 Gen 2.

We now find ourselves in a similar spot with USB 3.2. The newest, fastest version of USB 3.2 offers a max speed of 20Gbps and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. (The 2x2 means it's the second generation and has two 10Gbps lanes to achieve its maximum throughput of 20Gbps.) The older USB 3.1 has a single 10Gbps channel and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2. Then there's USB 3.0, which is now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.

Know your USB 3.2 versions

If you're on the lookout for the above USB 3.2 Gen 1 and 2 names when attempting to create the best possible connection between your devices, your work is not done. That's because there are separate marketing terms for each of the three USB 3.2 versions, which the USB-IF encourages vendors to use for their packaging. (Whether vendors follow this suggestion or use the above terms remains to be seen and requires you to know both sets of terms.) The marketing terms you'll see for USB 3.2 devices are: SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.

Perhaps spelling it all out in chart will help alleviate some confusion and your USB branding headache:

USB 3.2 VERSIONS

New name	Old name	Original name	SuperSpeed name	Max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2	N/A	USB 3.2	SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps	20Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 2	USB 3.1 Gen 2	USB 3.1	SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps	10Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 1	USB 3.1 Gen 1	USB 3.0	SuperSpeed USB	5Gbps

USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.

Here's another link with a great chart;

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/197145-reversible-usb-type-c-finally-on-its-way-alongside-usb-3-1s-10gbit-performance

For years, USB advanced at a predictable rate — USB2 was faster than USB, USB3 was faster than USB2, and now, USB4 is even on the horizon. In the last few years, the once-simple standard has broadened and become more confusing. There are now multiple types of USB3, including USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1, USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Then, on top of that, there’s the question of USB-C. How does it fit in?

D0n’t feel bad if you find this confusing. The USB-IF has done everything it possibly could have to ensure nobody can make sense of which USB standard a device supports, partly by repeatedly changing the name of previous standards as it updates brand guidance. The following table shows the relationship of USB standards to each other::

The following standards all refer to the exact same product: USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.0. These ports all transfer data at up to 5Gb/s. Similarly, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 also refer to the exact same standard. Hardware that complies with this specification can transfer data at up to 10Gbit/s. I’m not sure if anyone is shipping USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, because it’s an odd hybrid with USB 3.0’s original encoding scheme but USB 3.1 Gen 2’s bandwidth. Finally, there’s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, which is also it’s own specific standard without reference to previous products.

USB-C does not automatically mandate the use of any specific USB speed. USB-C is a physical cable standard that can support anything from USB2 to the latest USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 connection speeds, depending on the type of cable you own.

"Wrong again"

USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.

GeorgeBMac said:

fastasleep said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world.  And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers.  Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.

Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.

"Wrong again".  USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?

Not the first USB name change

This isn't the first time USB names have shifted. USB 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were absorbed into USB 2.0. When USB 3.1 showed up, USB 3.0 suddenly became USB 3.1 Gen 1, and the newer standard received the label USB 3.1 Gen 2.

We now find ourselves in a similar spot with USB 3.2. The newest, fastest version of USB 3.2 offers a max speed of 20Gbps and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. (The 2x2 means it's the second generation and has two 10Gbps lanes to achieve its maximum throughput of 20Gbps.) The older USB 3.1 has a single 10Gbps channel and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2. Then there's USB 3.0, which is now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.

Know your USB 3.2 versions

If you're on the lookout for the above USB 3.2 Gen 1 and 2 names when attempting to create the best possible connection between your devices, your work is not done. That's because there are separate marketing terms for each of the three USB 3.2 versions, which the USB-IF encourages vendors to use for their packaging. (Whether vendors follow this suggestion or use the above terms remains to be seen and requires you to know both sets of terms.) The marketing terms you'll see for USB 3.2 devices are: SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.

Perhaps spelling it all out in chart will help alleviate some confusion and your USB branding headache:

USB 3.2 VERSIONS

New name	Old name	Original name	SuperSpeed name	Max speed
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2	N/A	USB 3.2	SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps	20Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 2	USB 3.1 Gen 2	USB 3.1	SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps	10Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 1	USB 3.1 Gen 1	USB 3.0	SuperSpeed USB	5Gbps

USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.

Here's another link with a great chart;

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/197145-reversible-usb-type-c-finally-on-its-way-alongside-usb-3-1s-10gbit-performance

For years, USB advanced at a predictable rate — USB2 was faster than USB, USB3 was faster than USB2, and now, USB4 is even on the horizon. In the last few years, the once-simple standard has broadened and become more confusing. There are now multiple types of USB3, including USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1, USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Then, on top of that, there’s the question of USB-C. How does it fit in?

D0n’t feel bad if you find this confusing. The USB-IF has done everything it possibly could have to ensure nobody can make sense of which USB standard a device supports, partly by repeatedly changing the name of previous standards as it updates brand guidance. The following table shows the relationship of USB standards to each other::

The following standards all refer to the exact same product: USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.0. These ports all transfer data at up to 5Gb/s. Similarly, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 also refer to the exact same standard. Hardware that complies with this specification can transfer data at up to 10Gbit/s. I’m not sure if anyone is shipping USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, because it’s an odd hybrid with USB 3.0’s original encoding scheme but USB 3.1 Gen 2’s bandwidth. Finally, there’s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, which is also it’s own specific standard without reference to previous products.

USB-C does not automatically mandate the use of any specific USB speed. USB-C is a physical cable standard that can support anything from USB2 to the latest USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 connection speeds, depending on the type of cable you own.

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

NsStf said:

As always in a comments to an EU related story … 
- Bunch of people who hate the EU and so don’t care to read the actual proposition. They then complain with arguments that make no sense or are not even relevant. 

- Complain about how “bureaucrats in Brussels” decide, while complaining how the politicians in Brussels are dumb (make up you mind). 
- Non-EU people not understand what the EU is. It’s ok of course, just not super relevant 

You know, it’s possible to complain about EU decisions without being hateful or uninformed…

My complaint is actually about timeliness. 12 years later, "voluntary" transition that appears to be working, EU completely ignores that wireless charging is becoming a "thing". Apparently too much latency in the EU to accomplish anything.

Apple doesn't want to change to USB Type C from Lightning since they are rumored to be working on deprecating cable connections entirely. Charge Apple a nominal "fee" per unit for dragging its feet, but otherwise, the EU should get out of the way.

This is not a correct interpretation of events.

In 2009 the proposal and MoU was to reduce the insane amount of different chargers on the market, make life easier for consumers and reduce costs and e-waste.

At that time there were over 30 different chargers on the EU market.

Fast forward to 2019 (basically two years ago, not 12) and another impact assessment was initiated.

What this article is about is that report. It is a new assessment which covers the current state of affairs and tackles basically all the issues touched on in the comments here. 

I linked to that assessment earlier on and it is painfully obvious that few people here (if any) bothered to take a look.

In that decade, the charger map changed for the better. In that context, the move can be considered a success. It also had an impact worldwide. Just like RoHS and WEEE.

Current wireless charging technologies will not displace wired charging any time soon and Apple is directly responsible for shipping a 10 year old design (with its 5W charger) and contributing to unnecessary e-waste with a product that without out has sat in cupboards unused. 

How Did the EC's Earlier Approach Play Out?

The European Commission's efforts to establish a common charging standard for smartphones span more than a decade. In 2009, the EC estimated that 500 million mobile phones were in use in all EU countries. It found that the chargers used often varied according to the manufacturer and model, and that more than 30 different types of chargers were on the market. 

In a bid to harmonize standards, the EC negotiated a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by 14 tech companies including Apple, Samsung, Nokia, and other prominent smartphone manufacturers.

According to the MoU, phone makers agreed to adopt a micro-USB connector standard for smartphone chargers in the European Union that would allow full charging compatibility with mobile phones to be placed on the market.

The plan was for new phones to be sold with micro-USB chargers for a period of time, after which phones and chargers would be sold separately in order to allow customers who already owned chargers to continue using their existing ones. 

There was considerable speculation about whether Apple would be able to meet the requirements of the micro-USB standard. At the time, Apple used a proprietary 30-pin dock connector compatible with both the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

However, the wording of the MoU offered Apple a loophole: For those phones that did not have a USB micro-B interface, an adapter was allowed under the agreed terms. And that's exactly what Apple did. In 2012, Apple introduced the ‌iPhone‌ 5 with a new Lightning proprietary connector to replace its 30-pin connector, and additionally offered a separate Lightning to micro USB adapter to comply with the 2009 EU agreement.

Consequently, Apple ultimately wasn't required to abandon its proprietary connector or include a separate micro-USB interface directly on the device for charging purposes.

Why Was the 2009 MoU Considered a Failure?

A progress report provided by the MoU signatories in February 2013 indicated that 90 percent of the new devices placed on the market by the signatories and other manufacturers by the end of 2012 supported the common charging capability. But that statistic was so high only because it took into account the fact that Apple offered a Lightning to micro-USB adapter.

One member of the Commission would note: "The perception among the citizens and the European Parliament is that the common charger does not really exist, and looking at what we find among the most popular smartphones, we have to agree with them. The future MoU must be clear in its outcome, we cannot afford to admit adaptors." 

The lack of progress frustrated the Commission, and in 2014, the European parliament passed the Radio Equipment Directive, which called for a "renewed effort to develop a common charger." The directive gave the commission the power to directly set technical standards by means of a delegated act – in this case, a legislative act implementing EU rules.

By 2016, the Commission acknowledged that micro-USB had become dated and that USB-C had become the de facto standard across most devices. The Commission was advised by MoU facilitators that all manufacturers were ready to sign a new agreement in line with different approaches but keeping the solution of using solely USB-C connectors – except Apple.

Why is Apple Against the Idea of a Common Charger?

In 2016, Apple supported the adoption of USB-C as a standardized interface at the power source (i.e. the charging plug), but remained against conforming to a standard on devices themselves. The company argued that conforming to a device-side standard would cost it up to €2 billion and hamper innovation, largely based on the claim that iPhones were too thin to house a USB-C port. 

Apple even commissioned a study by Copenhagen Economics outlining the potential consumer harm from a mandatory move towards a common charger. 

The study concluded that it would cost consumers €1.5 billion if common charger rules became law, outweighing the €13 million associated with environmental benefits. The study also claimed that 49 percent of EU households rely on different types of chargers, but only 0.4 percent of those households experience any significant issues.

Apple's stance on the issue left the Commission deadlocked, but in 2018 the Commission agreed to continue working with manufacturers in order to achieve a suitable voluntary agreement. However, a year later the Commission concluded that its previous voluntary approach and the new MoU still allowed manufacturers to use adaptors with proprietary solutions and would not result in full charger harmonization.