Andrew S. Tanenbaum - Wikiquote https://en.wikiquote.org › wiki › Andrew_S._Tanenbaum
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.
Lantern working perfectly for me. Love the usb a to c charging capability! I have so many usb a chargers to choose from. So many I am going to buy a second lt1 when I get my code so I can put two chargers (type a female) to use at same time!
sorry i should have said i use this, my car is 1 year old but they only stuck in a load of type-a connectors:
So on a normal day i only carry a type-c to type-c and my type-c power bank in my pocket but if i owned this lantern i would carry another cable as well with a fat end type-c to small end.
I dont think the people complaining are doing it to hurt anyone’s feelings or wind people up i just think they want a BLF light to be the absolute best which is what i would expect of a BLF project, i would also like to thank DBSAR for bringing this exciting light to fruition. I think if anyone has an older one without the fix then they could just attach a converter to the side with an elastic band, i wouldn’t lose any sleep over that.
This is where it goes wrong, BLF projects will never be the absolute best, we are amateurs, we are budget, and we work with B-class manufacturers, how can one expect that the outcome is the absolute best? BLF-teams are struggling to get our novel flashlights to be ok quality for a budget price, more is an illusion. And we got some very special flashlights done which is an achievement.
Who is planning to carry the LT1 with them daily (in a backpack maybe?), and use it enough to need daily charging? I thought this thing was good for something like 4ish hours/day for over a week with lots of useable light?
This might be the most convoluted attempt at trying to explain away a technical oversight, aka mistake, I’ve ever seen. The LT1 team shouldn’t have put a USB-C connector on the LT1 if the team didn’t intend follow the spec for USB-C. The LT1 team made a non-compliant USB-C device. No amount of hand waving or spin is going to change that. When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C. It requires the use of the CC pins in a UFP to indicate to the DFP how much current it can draw. This means putting pull-down resistors on them. They are required by the USB-C spec (which has to be followed when implementing a USB-C port), even if it’s just a 500mA device. Leaving the CC pins open is not allowed.
What are you, the USB-C Police? There’s plenty of devices out there that use the USB-C connector without complying with the USB-C standard, just like there are plenty of USB Micro devices in the same boat.
Can you do us all a favor and read the BLF LT thread? The original light was designed with USB Micro, people asked for a change to a USB-C port for durability reasons, not USB-C compliance reasons. Should it have been brought up that since they would be using a USB-C port that it should also be USB-C charge compliant? Sure, but that wasn’t what was requested during the design phase of this crowdsourced, foreign manufactured light. It would be a mistake if USB-C compliant charging was a design requirement however in this case it was not. Now, since the church of USB-C demands it, the capability will be built into a forthcoming light. This however is a NEW FEATURE.
Once again, if this USB-C issue is such a giant problem just don’t buy the light, wait for it to come with the features you require.