927: Standards

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 04:43, 4 January 2016 by 108.162.236.121 (talk) (Explanation)
Jump to: navigation, search
Standards
Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit.
Title text: Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit.

Explanation

For any engineering task, there are numerous ways a given problem can be solved. The more complex the task, the more room for diversity. That's all well and good for a one-off problem, but if a design is meant to be iterated over time, or if an entire industry is solving that same problem, part reuse and interoperability become issues to deal with. Standards thus came to exist so that industries could avoid wasting resources reinventing the wheel, whilst offering their clients a certain amount of simplicity and compatibility between vendors.

But, standards have issues of their own. They don't accommodate every use case, they might have restrictions or royalties attached, and people tend to be plagued by Not Invented Here syndrome. So, competing standards have a tendency to arise to address different perceived needs. After a while, the market for competing standards gets messy and hard to follow, and {w|system integration|integrating systems} built around competing standards gets burdensome. As a result, someone eventually takes on the challenge of creating a universal standard that everyone can rally around.

This almost never works. In many cases, a new standard fails to displace the incumbent standard, and eventually loses funding and support, becoming a relic of history. In many other cases, it only penetrates far enough to survive, ironically making the situation messier. The latter situation often ends up becoming cyclical, with new standards periodically rising and failing to gain traction.

Transcript

How Standards Proliferate
(See: A/C chargers, character encodings, instant messaging, etc.)
Situation:
There are 14 competing standards.
Cueball: 14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
Ponytail: Yeah!
Soon:
Situation: There are 15 competing standards.
comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

But this new video codec might just be the one that solves all our problems! You never know until you try it! Davidy²²[talk] 09:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There are sixteen competing standards StillNotOriginal 02:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the mini-USB vs micro-USB standards rift a good representative example of what this comic is hinting at? Dexterous (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. Though, basically, there were even more variants than that around. Before each maker basically had their own socket, most kept it through their phone models, mostly. But everyone basically just uses Micro-USB nowadays... Some still use Mini-USB, but those numbers are dwindling. What really fits to this comic is something that was just recently announced: USB 3.1. If you Google for the new USB 3.1 plugs, you see they're completely different but "cover all use cases"... Let's see how that goes. Sinni800 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
3.1 type-c was meant to be fairly quickly adopted and designed to meet all use-cases for the foreseeable future. when the foreseeable future presents currently unforseeable use-cases a new standard will likely be rapidly developed and deployed. this is a functional model, different than the one that leads to competition amoungst hardware/software developers. Also, MKV is another example of a sustainable standard (container for media files). Googles VP9, and the coming VPx 18 month update cycle, seem to be the best current option for an open video codec standard.

This particular comic is widely cited in about four different SDO's that I participate in 108.162.216.9 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is more applicable to politics. It's so prevalent in the left and I frequently reference it on /r/socialism and stuff. Once in a while there will be a person posting saying that we need to form one major socialist party that appeals to als many tendencies as possible like Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, with the parties like SAlt, SPUSA, etc. It's like. NO. YOU'LL JUST FURTHER SHATTER THE LEFT. Forget parties. We all have the common goal of class consciousness and worker ownership of the means of production. Let's first work on that and *later* argue about the specifics. Like seriously. For the organizing the left is known for, there seems to be less organizing and more arguing going on... International Space Station (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hah, with that kind of talk, it's no wonder your Popular Front for Galilee only has one member, bleedin' splitter! The goal of the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem) is to free our country from the Judean People's Front (and the Romans after that) but there is no way allying with Samarian splitters like you is going to bring us closer to that goal! We will defeat the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem) and free our country! Bloody SPLITTERS! Long live the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem-North)!
Sorry, but after seeing that comment I couldn't resist :P --172.68.50.106 01:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

UTF-8 and UTF-16 can both encode the entire Unicode character set, so I edited the page to say this. (In actual fact, UTF-16 is more commonly thought of as the more limited version, by people who confuse it with UCS-2.) --Sophira (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)