If the industry is already highly competitive, which the US airline market is by any measure, one more marginal carrier accounting for just 3% of passenger miles, makes very little difference.
Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to price the product differently? For an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out are different situations.
For Uber/Lyft, booking a ride into the middle of nowhere carries a cost for the driver that isn’t present when booking a ride to the airport.
A flat fee per mile doesn’t make sense. A flat fee per seat doesn’t make sense. Grocery stores already price segment via coupons, sales, and loyalty programs - this is just an extension of that.
> Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to price the product differently? For an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out are different situations.
Obviously acceptable. But I'm talking about two people placing an order for the same ticket, same airline, same rewards program and getting different prices because the airline knows something about their private life. For example, maybe the airline has gotten information that one person is going to a funeral and thus are more willing to pay a higher price.
Everything about this encourages corporate espionage on private citizens which I'm opposed to. I'd rather not have google calendar secretly sharing my entries with delta so they can in turn determine what ticket price I might be willing to pay.
There's also not market fundamentals which can correct this situation. Back to the airline example, for any given route you are limited by the number of carriers to that location. Airports are physical things with limited capacity which naturally leads to monopolies and oligopolies. That means you can't just "pay someone that's not doing that" as you only have 2 or 3 options for most locations and they all want to participate in that scheme.
You're literally saying "an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out" is not "charging two people for the same route differently", completely missing the point of alex43578's excellent question.
I'm not. alex43578 was shifting the goalposts from the point cogman10 was making; I acknowledged what he said, but it was besides the point. An airline charging differently depending on the time ahead of flight is sensible. An airline charging differently depending on the buyer's home address is discrimination.
You said "charging two people for the same route differently" is bad: airlines do that constantly and that's why there's dozens of fare changes, fare buckets, sales, codeshares, etc.
Regardless, the bigger point is that businesses already have a ton of levers to move for pricing: sales, loyalty programs, and regular price adjustments. None of those are considered discrimination. Why does the buyer's home address fall into this protected class; particularly for any service that involves transport, delivery, etc to that address? There's a clear relevancy of the address to the cost of a service based around that location.
> sales, loyalty programs, and regular price adjustments. None of those are considered discrimination. Why does the buyer's home address fall into
Because everything you listed applies to everyone equally! Assuming a normal loyalty program anyone can join.
> any service that involves transport, delivery, etc to that address
Shopping at a grocery store doesn't involve that. But sure most forms of charging for transport based on destination are fine. That's different from charging two people differently to go the same place at the same time. "Home address" is just an easy piece of personal info to mention.
(An exception to that most would be like the hospital example, charging more for that specific location inside the general area because the buyer seems desperate.)
I suppose you are misunderstanding me on purpose, but let me try again in very clear terms anyway: Offering the same service or product (a specific flight if you will, a chunk of butter of the same brand in the same store at the same time) to two independent customers at different prices based on prior knowledge about them unrelated to the specific good or service is fundamentally unjust.
What you are referring to is 'price discrimination'[1]. @alex43578 is correct in his examples. In the 'Uber/Lyft' example, his metric for service similarity in the case of a ride to the airport vs. the middle of nowhere can be seen in the distance driven. The problem is that arguments can always be made on why pricing one demographic vs another makes business sense.
In the case of Uber/Lyft, the company can say a ride to the middle of nowhere costs more than a hotspot destination because the odds of finding someone hailing another ride from there are low. This would mean the driver would have to spend more on gas picking up their next customer. Although this seems reasonable, it's probabilistic in nature. This may also not be the case, but the company must price this risk to keep their drivers happy. Well what of the case where the destination is a dangerous neighborhood where the driver feels like their life will be in danger? How do we price the risk then? And that says nothing about the possible mismatch of perception between the seller and the customer.
How about if a grocery store sells goods at a higher price to customers in lower income areas because they notice that it lowers the number of high income area customers to the point they make less profit? Is it right for that store to raise the price for identifiably lower income area customer to make up for the lost profit?
> Offering the same service or product (a specific flight if you will, a chunk of butter of the same brand in the same store at the same time) to two independent customers at different prices based on prior knowledge about them unrelated to the specific good or service is fundamentally unjust
Your statement includes things like loyalty programs and memberships. Presenting these credentials at checkout means customers are willingly giving the company "prior knowledge about them" (that they've shopped at the store before and how much they're willing to spend) unrelated to the *specific* food or service they're purchasing. Should these practices be allowed?
The point of this reply isn't to say what should or shouldn't be allowed, it's to show that I believe the issue is more nuanced than you can account for in your statement of what constitutes unjust business practices.
Why is it unjust? It’s absolutely the store or individual’s choice to charge what they want to who they want, assuming that they aren’t discriminating against a protected class.
In your example, why aren’t all prices then fixed between different stores to ensure justice? Whole Foods shouldn’t be allowed to charge more than Discount Food Bin for the same can of beans, and WF in Oakland shouldn’t charge less than WF in Marin.
With both parties scrambling to buy non-taxpayer votes with taxpayer money, the list is endless. Free healthcare, free tuition, pork barrel spending, wars on behalf of other nations, lavish benefits for your ethnic group’s immigrants, etc.
You believe that poor people don't 'pay taxes', even though all of their money and excess labor value is definitionally recirculated into the economy or back to the government?
You believe in the world's most expensive healthcare, the world's most expensive universities(/hedge funds), corrupt spending on corporations, wars on behalf of the empire, and our vassal states, and 'lavish' benefits for only corporations and white people (as has been the case since we invented whiteness)?
Am I correctly understanding that this status quo is your preference?
I'm also curious which benefit is specifically 'lavish'. The only social programs I'd describe as such are the programs that create billionaires.
Or do you just think that politicians shouldn't talk about rent, fuel, and food prices?
Or is your contention that the working poor just stupid for believing anything will ever get better in our two party system?
>You believe that poor people don't 'pay taxes', even though all of their money and excess labor value is definitionally recirculated into the economy or back to the government?
Yes, about 31% of returns in 2022 were for people who didn't pay federal income tax. By a massive, overwhelming majority, they are lower-income levels, who also receive the most direct cash and cash-like benefits from the government.
>You believe in the world's most expensive healthcare, the world's most expensive universities(/hedge funds), corrupt spending on corporations, wars on behalf of the empire, and our vassal states, and 'lavish' benefits for only corporations and white people (as has been the case since we invented whiteness)?
Surely you realize healthcare and university expense is, in part, driven by all the free money the government pumps into the system, right? How successful would universities be at charging $80K a semester if not for federally subsidized student loans? I'm arguing against all the things you just listed - you seem to be confused.
>Am I correctly understanding that this status quo is your preference?
The status quo for the last 20 years is a bad thing. Our ballooning debt, as a direct result of profligate spending on all the things I listed, is a problem. Again, you seem to be very confused about my position.
>I'm also curious which benefit is specifically 'lavish'. The only social programs I'd describe as such are the programs that create billionaires.
What social program do you think creates billionaires? Even being charitable to your position, Walmart's revenue is about 4% driven by foodstamps. Even big bad Walmart isn't successful because of social programs.
As for lavish:
"The government’s failure to count its largess as recipients’ income allows welfare households to blow past the income level above which a working family no longer qualifies for government help. Take a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work. The government considers this household in poverty because its income is below $25,273. But this family would qualify for benefits worth $53,128. It would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits. The family would also receive Food Stamp debit cards worth $9,216 a year, $9,476 in housing subsidies, $877 of government payments for utility bills, $16,033 to fund Medicaid, $3,102 in free meals at school and $6,624 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. All this puts the family’s income at $64,128, or 254% of the poverty level.
A hardworking family earning anything like $64,128 in salary wouldn’t be eligible for any of these welfare benefits in four-fifths of the states. Meanwhile, the welfare family would be eligible for another 90 small federal benefits and sundry state and local welfare programs."
>Or do you just think that politicians shouldn't talk about rent, fuel, and food prices?
Considering politicians from both sides have repeatedly made each of these issues worse through things like rent-control and zoning restrictions or environmental restrictions and the Iran war, yes, I do think politicians should just be quiet and do less: they'd cause less damage.
>Or is your contention that the working poor just stupid for believing anything will ever get better in our two party system?
Basically any average citizen is silly for thinking their vote has an impact. Per "Testing Theories of American Politics", the preferences of the average citizen have a "near-zero, statistically non-significant impact" on public policy when the preferences of economic elites and organized interest groups are taken into account.
I don't know how to explain in clearer terms that, for the lowest quintile of the population, who has zero or negative net wealth. They have given every dollar they have to someone else. Be it the government or a private corporation, all their dollars act as stimulus or savings for those with more. All their excess labor value, generated from their work, also goes to other people, predominantly the wealthy.
You are annoyed they don't pay income taxes, but where are the accolades for their generosity?
> What social program do you think creates billionaires?
Elon Musk would not be a hundred billionaire without government contracts and vast government subsidies. Likewise for Ellison and Palantir and whoever else gets to hoover up our defense spending. So too for any entity that receives the myriad benefits of 'public private partnership' in domains that used to be exclusively government run. Deloitte makes bank on 'administering' public programs. The Multi-billion dollar retail Tax prep exists entirely because the government is bribed not to compete. Private prisons/concentration camps are 'social programs' that produces billions in private wealth. etc. etc.. etc...
> Take a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work. The government considers this household in poverty because its income is below $25,273. But this family would qualify for benefits worth $53,128.
> It would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits.
... A person who make this little would not pay income taxes, so these credits cannot be realized.
> Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TANF is temporary
All of these programs are difficult to retain access to. I've never met anybody among the working poor able to realize even half of these meagre benefits.
A random family in NYC would pay, on average, $20,439 annually, just on child care, per child, thus, this hypothetical single parent is contributing at least $40k in labor to produce future workers. It's not unreasonable to give them compensation for this thankless task.
As another point of comparison, Norway spends 18k per year for every kindergartener in their nation regardless of the parent's income. This is what is known as, under capitalism, an investment with a 50 year compounding return.
Starving, homeless children produce negative externalities if they are not cared for, so the return on the investment is even more potent in this case.
All this said, you've asserted that 53k, by itself, is 'lavish'. But you are speaking to someone who regularly makes that much money in between blinks on a half-decent day in the market, so I'm not really convinced that it is.
> Basically any average citizen is silly for thinking their vote has an impact. Per "Testing Theories of American Politics", the preferences of the average citizen have a "near-zero, statistically non-significant impact" on public policy when the preferences of economic elites and organized interest groups are taken into account.
This is why organized, sustained political action is required above and beyond elections. So that, in aggregate, these near-zeros can create change.
It's not an invitation to check out and advocate for centrist reactionary nihilistic libertarianism, which is what I have to assume your true position is.
>... All their excess labor value, generated from their work, also goes to other people, predominantly the wealthy.
You are annoyed they don't pay income taxes, but where are the accolades for their generosity?
70% of the people in the lowest quintile have 0 adults working fulltime, and therefore produce effectively 0 labor value. They don't contribute, they take. Would you be OK with requiring a work, education, volunteer, or caretaking requirement for any welfare programs; to ensure that these people are actually working for society?
>Elon Musk would not be a hundred billionaire without government contracts and vast government subsidies. Likewise for Ellison and Palantir and whoever else gets to hoover up our defense spending. So too for any entity that receives the myriad benefits of 'public private partnership' in domains that used to be exclusively government run. Deloitte makes bank on 'administering' public programs. The Multi-billion dollar retail Tax prep exists entirely because the government is bribed not to compete. Private prisons/concentration camps are 'social programs' that produces billions in private wealth. etc. etc.. etc...
None of those are social programs: they required the person or company to "work" by providing a service or good that benefits people, rather than get a handout. There's a debate over the government mismanaging and misallocating the budget, but Lockheed selling a F-35 or Ellison providing compute to the government is not welfare.
> Government welfare: [The low income, underemployed family] would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits.
>>... A person who make this little would not pay income taxes, so these credits cannot be realized.
You do know what a refundable tax credit means, right? "A refundable tax credit is a credit you can get as a refund even if you don't owe any tax. - IRS"
>All of these programs are difficult to retain access to. I've never met anybody among the working poor able to realize even half of these meagre benefits.
All these programs exist and receive billions of dollars at both the state and federal level. If people aren't receiving those dollars, all the more reason to abolish the program and stop the hemorrhage of cash.
>A random family in NYC would pay, on average, $20,439 annually, just on child care, per child, thus, this hypothetical single parent is contributing at least $40k in labor to produce future workers. It's not unreasonable to give them compensation for this thankless task.
NYC is 200% more expensive higher than the national average for COL and 400% higher when counting housing. It's a terrible place to try and raise a family on a low income. NYC's budget deficit varies, but is in the billions. Subsidizing a future barista or UberEats driver to the tune of $100K or more in childcare across 5 years is ludicrous, especially when you consider that again, about 40% of people pay 0 federal taxes. Stats aren't readily available for NYC taxpayers by income, but I can guarantee that NYC would literally lose money on this "investment" at a population level.
> As another point of comparison, Norway spends 18k per year for every kindergartener in their nation regardless of the parent's income. This is what is known as, under capitalism, an investment with a 50 year compounding return.
And the US spends $18,614 per public school pupil. Again, we're already spending the money but not getting the return (see: PISA scores, graduation rates, educational outcomes).
I completely agree that ROI should be considered when making government decisions. With that in mind, let's focus on reducing low ROI migration and illegal immigration. "Immigrants without a college education and all those who immigrate to the U.S. after age 55 are universally a net fiscal burden by up to $400,000... The average newly arrived immigrant who entered the country illegally is expected to have a net fiscal burden of about $130,000 in adjusted terms, so preventing future unlawful immigration is important...Using these figures, every refugee in FY 2022 is expected to increase the federal budget deficit of the U.S. by nearly $152,000 over his lifetime".
>Starving, homeless children produce negative externalities if they are not cared for, so the return on the investment is even more potent in this case.
The US already has SNAP, WIC, TANF, Section 8, and more. Again, these children aren't starving/homeless because we aren't paying for them, but because their parents are misallocating the money we give them.
>All this said, you've asserted that 53k, by itself, is 'lavish'. But you are speaking to someone who regularly makes that much money in between blinks on a half-decent day in the market, so I'm not really convinced that it is.
Now multiply that $53K across the population, and you'll see a major contributor to the $1.9 trillion deficit.
> This is why organized, sustained political action is required above and beyond elections. So that, in aggregate, these near-zeros can create change. It's not an invitation to check out and advocate for centrist reactionary nihilistic libertarianism, which is what I have to assume your true position is.
What action do you want to advocate for? More taxes, more wasteful spending, more people not contributing to society but just taking? Before you advocate for policy, learning some tax basics like what a refundable tax credit is would go a long way.
I think that opaque pricing is bad in that it creates a feeling of helplessness in the customer, is annoying and after every deal it makes you feel like you have been ripped off. Like the - call us to get a quote on some sites instead of direct pricing.
To a lesser extent it is the same with loyalty programs - my grocery stores often discount items to 50% and on my receipt it there is usually something like - you saved 20 Euro - which could be 20 to 30% of the bill. A lesser mind than the average consumer's may suspect that they keep all the prices permanently inflated by 20 to 30% and if some schmuck dare to buy their favorite cheese when not discounted - it is on them.
And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Hamas could choose not to kill 800-some civilians and take 250 hostages, etc.
Iran has said that it's working on nuclear energy, not a bomb. Their pope-level religious leader said it was haram to have nuclear weapons. I know you can't necessarily trust Iran's word, but can you trust Israel's?
I've never received any answer to the question "what legitimate non-military use is there for a 60%-plus enriched uranium?"
The nuclear reactors can provide free electricity out of 2-5% enriched uranium, the naval propulsion (like for ... nuclear icebreakers for the Straits of Hormuz, I dunno?) needs 8-10% enriched.
It doesn't matter what they say, or what their leaders say -- there is only one use for 60%+ enriched uranium known to the science, and it's military (the atomic bomb).
Fast neutron reactors / breeder reactors need I'm not exactly sure but something like 20% but they can use very highly enriched. Naval reactors can use very highly enriched for longer fuel service life, it's not necessary but they can and it has benefits.
The US and Russia in slightly better days were burning off their excessive amounts of stockpiled enriched uranium and plutonium in fast neutron reactors just to get rid of it as part of a mutual drawdown of stockpiles – not at all necessary but can definitely be used.
Small amounts for research reactors, medical isotope production and the like is an argument.
Those are the possible uses but it's just thinly veiled BS when a country like Iran has 60% enriched uranium for civilian power projects. The only actual reason to stockpile it like that is so you can spout nonsense about its purpose while only being a short distance away from enriching it to weapons grade.
Considering Iran has exactly one nuclear power plant being built by Russia (with Russian fuel), "it's possible in theory to also do other things" looks like extremely far-fetched theories when the actual truth is out there: they want a bomb.
> being a short distance away from enriching it to weapons grade
There is ZERO serious questioning that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. It is abundantly clear that they were. How actively and to what extent in recent years is a matter of some debate but in general they absolutely have had a serious weapons program.
Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran will have a nuke within a few years, for more than 30 years, and seeking to use that as a justification to invade them. If Iran wanted to make a nuke in this time frame they would have. The only thing that changed now is that he found a big enough idiot to believe him. Though now that the US and Israel have invaded them, I do expect they will develop a nuclear weapon, because it seems to be the only way for a nation to ensure its security in modern times.
Actually having an assembled weapon is a red line and significant threat.
Having almost-a-bomb like an IKEA Billy shelf still unassembled in its box in the garage is what they wanted. The threat of being able to have a bomb. There have been several instances over the decades of the west finding and blowing up their prepared materials and facilities in order to try to make the runway longer.
By the way this is also most likely where Japan is.
Japan is also a NPT signatory and they also very likely have an almost-bomb. That is in secret they very likely have the research, the designs, the industrial capacity for the final enrichment, and almost weapons grade enriched stockpiles. They don't want to have to cross the line into the territory of actually constructing a bomb or announcing it publicly, but they want the potential and for their adversaries to know that they could do it in short order without giving them enough of a provocation to actually be called out.
No, actually having an assembled weapon is how they get the US and Israel to stop screwing over their country, which has been going on for more than 70 years now. They inched up their enrichment higher and higher each time the US or Israel attacked them as a warning. And the US and Israel kept attacking them. There is nowhere left to go but nuclear from here.
This is even more true as the former Supreme Leader of Iran had issued a religious fatwa against the development of a nuclear weapon. And then the US decided to assassinate him. His successor, his son, is much more hardline. That's either some serious 5d chess, or we just have idiots for leaders and allies alike. And we both know which it is.
why would Iran not make a nuke when America keeps bombing countries that don't have nukes, and avoids bombing countries that have nukes (most notably North Korea)? They have all the incentives to have a nuke so they'll stop getting bombed. Obama negotiated to avoid this but Trump ripped it up and bombed them, so they're definitely not going to trust any agreements with the west ever again. From their perspective, their only path to not getting bombed to shit involves having several nukes. It's quite rational for them to do that.
That’s a bit cynical to view every corporate action through that lens. There’s certainly the innovator’s dilemma, and plenty of busy work, but to your Google example, plenty of tasks and developments are needed to keep the thing running.
Detect and counter black hat SEO, build or acquire a new product you can spread ads to (Maps, YouTube), create a chatbot that can eventually get ads if search is supplanted. These things support or maintain that monopoly/equilibrium you’re talking about.
More accurately, it’s being forced to move a specific piece despite disadvantages, because not moving it would result in an even worse outcome — as opposed to moving a different piece that you’d otherwise prefer to move. So it means being forced to move that first piece instead of not moving it (instead of moving a different piece).
And that’s the generalized meaning in German, being forced to act with respect to a specific thing, where you’d normally prefer to keep it in its current state.
You run out of time on your clock. If you press your clock without moving, the opponent will alert the referee to sort you out. And if you play without a clock, your opponent will get annoyed at you taking forever to move.
200 miles will easily get you out of the path of a hurricane. 200 back home. 400 miles at 20mpg is 20 gallons of gas. Even if gas doubles from $4 to $8, that’s only an extra $80, likely less than the cost of that one night of motel, and certainly less than the economic costs of actually being hit by a hurricane.
As with many things, markets do work, but people don’t make rational choices for their well-being.
I get that to properly test a cable, you need that level of accuracy, but for home use, couldn’t you get away with a source and a receiver that are far cheaper?
If a USB4 device can output a USB4 stream and the receiver can check that stream for errors, isn’t that sufficient?
At some point you end up testing the peripheral and/or host rather than the cable. For example, cables often state that they can handle up to 240W ... but no 240W USB-PD chip has ever gone into production -- you won't even find one at the hottest USB-PD trade shows[0] in China.
It could be reasonable for computers to be allowed to trigger a data throughput test and the peripheral would state "I support up to 40Gbps of receiving/sending", and then send a simple pattern that can be generated on the fly. But a lot of devices can't receive/send that 80Gbps of data for long enough to perform a decent test - the storage, RAM, buffers, etc get depleted or act as bottlenecks.
If you know enough to accurately interpret the measurements you get from that, you know enough to write your own computer program to try to send 80Gbps from one computer to another and use DMA to process it in real-time without hitting storage (which a lot of peripherals likely don't have the CPU to accomplish).
If you don't know enough to write those test applications, you probably don't know enough to interpret the results of a built-in test function and the measurements would confuse and frustrate a lot of well-meaning, nerdy, but under-educated consumers who make assumptions about why they're not actually getting the rated speed.
Idk, my opinion doesn't go one way or the other here. Perhaps I myself don't quite know enough to be a good judge of that concept.
> For example, cables often state that they can handle up to 240W ... but no 240W USB-PD chip has ever gone into production -- you won't even find one at the hottest USB-PD trade shows[0] in China.
Your information is out of date. You can buy 240W chargers from Framework which I assume are just rebranded Delta chargers:
I think you’re overthinking the bottleneck side of things: RAM to RAM would be sufficient to capture if the cable is capable of 40Gbps.
All an end user cares about is if the cable is the bottleneck, if you think you have known-good devices. If I have a MacBook and a good NVMe enclosure, I want to know if my cable is fast enough, rather than have it quietly fall back to 3.2 or worse.
You don't need to test at 240W. You primarily need to test that it can handle 5 amps with limited voltage drop. You can also test that it handles 48 volts but basically any cable can handle 48 volts. The chance that either one of those very mild operating conditions compromises the other when you combine them is minimal.
>no 240W USB-PD chip has ever gone into production
This is because the cross-sectional-area of the conductor would create an inflexible cable – and even then the connector (even though rated) could never handle a sustained 240W in the real world.
Fires. Fires everywhere... this is why no 240W chip exists.
240W for USB-PD is only 5 Amps (USB spec only calls out for 240W at 48V) which can be safely carried by a standard 16AWG conductor.
USB-IF certifies plenty of USB cables as being tested safe for 240W. The reason 240W chargers don't exist is due to cost and a chicken-and-egg problem. There’s not really any demand for it.
Just so I understand: would "extra snubbing" mean the USB-C cable wiggles less when plugged in (i.e. tighter tolerances)?
If so, this would probably mean it'll break/deform easier, too, no?
My above perspective is literally after decades of replacing burned-out devices (both freelance residential and IBEW datacenters), which "technically" are installed correctly — but know their realworld-alities.
There is an electrical circuit that suppresses the voltage spike when you suddenly unplug the cable, to suppress arcing. This improves the immediate physical safety at high power levels, and improves the amount of wear that happens. No physical changes.
My lay understanding is that USB-C PowerDelivery isn't even initiated until comms have established the supported wattage? ...or perhaps some very low 5W USB-A-like amount. On sudden disconnect, I presume you're talking about a debouncer (RC) circuit?
----
The concern I have is less about initial arcing (i.e. intentional [dis]connections), and more about long-term sustained powerdraw (I have seen soooooo many melted neutral terminals on 120V receptacles) on a loose connection. Connections become loose for a variety of reasons (including but not limited to bad installation), particularly on thermal throttlers (e.g. small wires, corrosion, cycling).
Does low voltage world have the same 80% derating as insidewireman-land (NEC/AHJ)? i.e. does a 240W PD USB-C allow continues 240W delivery (by protocol/standard/regulator), or is it neutered to 180W for "long-term loads" == 3+hr runtime (e.g. a computer display), with only ≥181W-peaking allowed..?
I just cannot see how such a small connector/cable can deliver sustained 240W, in the realworld that I've lived in.
> My lay understanding is that USB-C PowerDelivery isn't even initiated until comms have established the supported wattage? ...or perhaps some very low 5W USB-A-like amount. On sudden disconnect, I presume you're talking about a debouncer (RC) circuit?
Correct that this is only a worry about disconnects.
> The concern I have is less about initial arcing (i.e. intentional [dis]connections), and more about long-term sustained powerdraw
I think devices usually monitor voltage to make sure there isn't too much loss, and you're probably not going to get enough loose pins at the same time to see dramatic issues.
It's a valid concern, but it's a concern you'd see on almost any type of plug, isn't it?
> Does low voltage world have the same 80% derating as insidewireman-land (NEC/AHJ)? i.e. does a 240W PD USB-C allow continues 240W delivery (by protocol/standard/regulator), or is it neutered to 180W for "long-term loads" == 3+hr runtime (e.g. a computer display), with only ≥181W-peaking allowed..?
They're not worried about heating that takes more than 3 hours, so that specific kind of derating isn't part of the spec.
The 3 or 5 amp limit is designed around continuous load.
> I just cannot see how such a small connector/cable can deliver sustained 240W, in the realworld that I've lived in.
Well for sustained current we're worried about the amps, right? You get the same resistance and heat in the plug regardless of voltage.
Before USB C, we were putting 3 amps over a single pin each way in a USB Micro connector. Now with USB C we're putting 5 amps over 4 pins each way, with the new pins almost as big as the old pins.
>you're probably not going to get enough loose pins at the same time to see dramatic issues ... it's a valid concern, but it's a concern you'd see on almost any type of plug, isn't it?
nVidia_12VHPWR_sweating_bullets_.gif
(if unfamiliar, the 12VHPWR is the fire hazard found on some modern GPUs)
----
In the trade-offs of amps verse volts, there are tradeoffs to be made. Yes, I agree that amperage is the primary generator of heat... but is voltage not the primary degenerator of insulations/gaps (particular one so user-interfacing). In a perfect world...
kids_phone_cord.frayed
----
Thanks for the great discussion. I'm learning/adapting. This oaf breaks.things.lots
I'm aware of the nvidia thing. But these particular pins have much less individual leeway, and they're a few mm apart in a pretty tight shell so you can't get the same kind of crooked install.
More voltage has more dangerous aspects, but 48 isn't all that high and in a steady state it's not causing problems.
Plenty of USB-C cables are capable of charging at 5 amps continuously and do so today. How is the voltage relevant to how much power is dissipated in the cable? That’s the only difference between a 100W charger and a 240W charger.
I'm envisioning some future frayedAF school laptop cord, where an increasing voltage correlates to higher likelihood that those amps can more-readily arc/jump (across melt, muck, and matter).
At the end of the day, an increase of either voltage and/or amps calls for a sturdier design (of ports and cables).
> At the end of the day, an increase of either voltage and/or amps calls for a sturdier design (of ports and cables).
The cables themselves are already plenty tolerant from an insulation standpoint for 48V. Voltage is low enough to not harm anyone. The ports, as already mentioned elsewhere, are designed to have snubber circuits for rapid reduction in voltage during an unplug. There's a keep-alive to cut voltage as soon as it doesn't detect things plugged in anymore (or, perhaps, the cable gets damaged and can't communicate).
Seems to me like the sturdier design is already accounted for. I don't think "it's small therefore I don't like it" is a valid reason to distrust the standard inherently.
