• ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 days ago

    MIDI.

    Before the 80’s, there was no standard interface to control electronic instruments, just a bunch of proprietary interfaces unique to each manufacterer. But in 1983, amazingly they actually standardized on MIDI, and it remains a useful standard to this day, with any new versions of MIDI being completely backwards compatible, so your Yamaha DX7 from the 80’s is still just as viable to use today as the day it was new!

    • monomon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Should mention Open Sound Control which is also pretty good. Not exactly a competitor, it was supposed to provide a richer, real time interface. Still popular for certain use cases, including beyond music.

  • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    1000006617

    There are many, I think. Like what other people have mentioned, sometimes the new standard is just better on all metrics.

    Another common example is when someone creates something as a passion project, rather than expecting it to get used widely. It’s especially frustrating for me when I see people denigrate projects like those, criticizing it for a lack of practicality…

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      The competing standards problem is mostly a problem of not actually talking to stakeholders. Most of these “universal standards” don’t cover some rare, specific, but very important, use cases.

  • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    Light bulb sockets are the same all over. RJ-45 Ethernet, USB-C, Bluetooth, WiFi, TCP, HTTP, HTML, CSS.

    • NGnius@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      While light bulb sockets don’t change much from region to region, they definitely aren’t all the same. For the bulbs (not the bars), there’s two large categories: Edison screws and bi-pin. Edison screws also come in a lot of sizes. When compact fluorescents were rolling out, they got a new bi-pin connector from the USA: GU24. My whole home has GU24 fixtures (not by my own choice), but my lamps are Edison screws.

      • Sol 6 VI StatCmd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thank you for teaching me how to replace my porch light (ONLY MY PORCH LIGHT?!?!) that’s been out for over a year. I tried to pull the bulb out and it shattered in my hands. I was like WTF is this shit? Haven’t touched it since.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        GU24 is wack, especially for home lighting. I think they aren’t made much anymore.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      USB-C

      Gonna have to disagree with you there. Try using a USB-C data cable to charge a device. Now try figuring out which cable out of five is the charge cable.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Those aren’t different standards, they’re just different USB-C cables. It’s like saying light bulb sockets aren’t a unifying standard because there’s different bulbs with different wattages. The fact that all those cables work over the same standard is an example of how ubiquitous the standard is. That said they should be labeled better, like how USB3 was color coded blue; each cable could have a color strip to distinguish it.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Shouldn’t being able to identify which cable is used for which application be part of a standard?

          You brought up light bulbs- imagine if they didn’t tell you the wattage? But they do. They print it right on the bulb.

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I agree with you, but I don’t think that makes it a poor example; those different cables aren’t competing standards, they’re different types of USB-C cables. They should absolutely label the cables though, big oversight on the standard there.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Just use React or something, you can use a single syntax for all three. It makes total sense why the syntax is different if you think about when and why they were made. We had HTML for years before CSS, and it was longer still until we got JavaScript. Each language has a different purpose, so naturally a different syntax makes sense. Your hill is poorly defended.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          In that case on general programming language should have taken over instead of trying to merge all three. Especially CSS, which in its infinite intelligence decided to use the minus operator instead of underscore, is completely out of place. Everything is jank and you can tell it has been patched together with duct tape.

          • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Idk, I like CSS, but I come from a web development background. Modern JS (ES4+) is fully capable of replacing CSS using the style property.

            JSX is sort of like a singular language to do all three.

            HTML isn’t perfect, but I can’t think of a better language for writing documents. TEX is unintuitive, PDF is opaque, markdown is just HTML shorthand.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    Whenever the new standard hits the almost impossible golden triangle of “cheap, reliable, and fast”.

    It’s gotta be cheaper than the alternatives, better and more reliable than the alternatives, and faster/easier to adopt than the alternatives.

    Early computers for example had various ways to chug math, such as mechanical setups, relays, vacuum tube’s, etc.

    When Bell invented their MOSFET transistor and figured out how to scale production, all those previous methods became obsolete for computers because transistors were now cheaper, more reliable, and faster to adopt than their predecessors.

    Tbf though transistors are more of a hardware thing. A better example of a standard would be RIP being superceded by BGP on the internet.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tbf though transistors are more of a hardware thing. A better example of a standard would be RIP being superceded by BGP on the internet.

      another big example is the telecom companies being superseded by IP based networking, rather than whatever patch routing bullshit was previously cooked up.

      Sometimes certain solutions are just, better.

  • jimmux@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    3 days ago

    Toilet paper rolls.

    Somehow we settled on a pretty good size for toilet rolls, and there never seems to be a compatibility issue with holders.

    At least not for households. Commercial products have their own things going on, but it doesn’t affect most people.

    Is there a formal standard, or did we decide not to mess with good enough?

    • Machinist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      We’ve got a 100 year old toilet roll holder, the spindle was turned on a lathe and the wooden cutout it sits in was hand carved. It is a poor fit for modern high sheet count rolls. We can’t stand to get rid of it so we just leave the roll outside of it until it is small enough to fit.

      • lemming741@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        I have a half-bath with a modern holder. When that roll is 75% consumed, I move it to the bathrooms with the older style.

        • Machinist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I actually have a wood lathe and all the other tooling to make one, not that I would.

          I’ve been fixing the place up since August. It’s a farm that hasn’t been properly maintained in about 20 years.

          I’m doing my best to build to the standard of the original owner and his son with modern materials and methods. It’s a humbling experience. Nothing is quite square but everything is built like it’s bomb proof. You couldn’t afford to build out of solid wood like they did. The joints and meets are also super tight, you can’t get a sheet of paper between roof boards on the barn in most places.

      • Kissaki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        When one roll is empty, have you considered rolling half of a new roll onto it?

        • Machinist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          That sounds like a lot of fiddly work. Just sit a new roll on the back of the tank and use it until it fits.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    You can avoid the issue when a government just mandates one standard, ideally after consulting with experts on which is the best.
    See: USB, SCART, etc.

    • renzev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      A lot of people seem to be opposed to this argument, seeing it as a kind of government overreach, but I think it can work if done correctly. Things like USB and HDMI are already governed by collectives of companies, I think having the government work together with them can be beneficial for both consumers and producers alike.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        non standard conforming cables, and connectors, plus the entire mess of it supporting anything from power only, to usb 2, to usb 3, to thunderbolt 3, to thunderbolt 4? and usb 4.0 now.

        It’s an utter fucking disaster of a shithole.

  • Euro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Email, as far as im aware there isn’t some alternative email standard (messaging services, whatsapp, signal, sms, etc do not count imo as I believe they serve a different purpose than email)

    DNS, while there are alternative root servers, they still fundamentally rely on the dns protocol.

    TCP/IP, when the internet was first starting, this was not the only standard in use, but now it is (to my knowledge).

    I thought about this for longer than I should’ve for a comment on a random post, but this is all I could think of lol.

    edit: grammar

  • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 days ago

    Networking standards started picking winners during the PC revolution of the 80’s and 90’s. Ethernet, with the first standards announced in 1983, ended up beating out pretty much other LAN standard at the physical layer (physical plugs, voltages and other ways of indicating signals) and the data link layer (the structure of a MAC address or an Ethernet frame). And this series of standards been improved many times over, with meta standards about how to deal with so many generations of standards through autonegotiation and backwards compatibility.

    We generally expect Ethernet to just work, at the highest speeds the hardware is capable of supporting.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      networking standards were a mess before ethernet really fucking cooked with twisted pair wiring.

      Ethernet had already existed for a little bit prior to this, and most other alternatives were actively being worked on at the time, and relatively similar to ethernet, save for the general technical implementation, token ring as opposed to the funny broadcast meta. But when ethernet was able to just barely get ahead and use twisted pair, the entire thing came crumbling down and everyone agreed that ethernet over twisted pair, with switched star topology was the best.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          three primary things.

          Fucking coax, literally the bane of anybody anywhere, fucking horrible standard. Works well, which is the only reason anybody uses it, it’s just a nightmare. (if you have ever dealt with a coax cable, you know exactly what i mean)

          Offices were already wired up with phone lines, which often had redundant lines running to each endpoint, meaning you could just hook straight into the existing wiring infrastructure, and convert it to ethernet (very accessible and cheap)

          twisted pair comes with the advantage of noise reduction over longer distances, cheaper construction, and significantly simpler wire structure, making it easier to route, manage, terminate, and just generally exist around. (basically the same as the first one lmao)

          It was actually so much of a problem, that the original ethernet standard, based on RG-6? I think, don’t quote me on it, ended up moving to a smaller coax standard and was referred to as “thinnet” as it was thinner coax and easier to work with.

  • Obelix@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    There are a lot and in most cases you’ll notice when dealing with Americans, who are refusing to do stuff like the rest of the world. The meter and kilogram took over from hundreds of different measurement standards. Most of the world is using the same calendar and writes dates in the same way. Most countries are driving on the same side. Traffic signs are kind of the same worldwide. You can buy screws with the same standard everywhere.

  • moakley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Not exactly this, but it reminds me of my first job. I used to work in finance, and I was given the task of automating cash flow reports that were sent out to hundreds of clients.

    The problem was that they were made manually in Excel, and most of them were unique. So every couple years they’d get a bunch of smart people in a conference room, and tell them to figure out how to automate the cash flows. The first step was always to create a standard cash flow template, and convince everyone to adopt it.

    Some users would adopt the new template, but most of them would say that the client didn’t like it, so they’d stop using it and the project would fall apart.

    By the time I got there, there were still hundreds of unique cash flows, but then there were a few dozen that shared the same handful of templates, like a graveyard of failed attempts to automate this process.

    I just made the output customizable. The reports looked the same as what the client was used to, but it saved hundreds of man hours for the users. A lot of people got laid off.

  • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 days ago

    The way I see it, it’s not so much an issue of making something that’s better than the other standards. It’s really about getting your standard into actual use and hitting critical mass which makes all the other standards irrelevant.