Probably not (except if you are connecting your super duper fast USB to a super duper fast network adapter). USB is a host to device protocol. It does not play well with multi-host arrangements. I see nothing directly in the USB standard that would allow this. *MAYBE* if you used a USB C to USB C, and one side negotiates as host and the other side as a device, which gets into the rat hole of non-standard dual role protocols or ... shiver OTG.

If peer-peer networking is what you really want, use a network interface/cable.

As someone that has designed with Ethernet and USB (at hardware and software levels), USB and Ethernet are VERY different (A canal and a railroad share a lot of characteristics, but, oh god, the differences!). The USB model is very much a host/device type network, point-point, and Ethernet is a peer-peer setup, usually physically point-point, but logically point-point or point-multipoint. USB is packetized, but looks like Ethernet to analyzers like Wireshark more for the convenience of Wireshark developers and users (why develop different filter mechanisms?). I DEFINITELY prefer using wireshark over the dedicated analyzers.

For day-day usage (not in datacenter), wired, unshielded twisted pair ethernet has progressed REALLY slowly. Spec wise, I think it was intended to go at a 5-ish year interval. The gigabit ethernet spec (1000Base-T) was ratified in *1999*, 10GBit in 2006 (but it was short range), 2.5GBit and 5Gbit in 2016.

Really fast progress has been pushed to fiber, datacenter and multi-kilometer level runs. The physics of copper wiring/interconnect really limit the choices. Not much good in creating a consumer network when the manufacturer's cost of the connector is over $100.

USB is oriented to consumers: low cost, around the desktop.

Neal Stephenson is one of the authors that true influencers in the tech world read (and who control massive amounts of investment capital). Like them or not, as Wikipedia quotes: "Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, John Carmack, and Peter Thiel are all fans of his work." Which is why, with Stephenson's name on it, it gains even more attention.

USB PD Revision 3.1 is up to 240W. Ref: https://www.usb.org/usb-charge...

Profit margins on computers are surprisingly small, with too many companies doing the "wal-mart" and insisting on quarter/quarter price reductions. Unfortunately, to be competitive, you have to factor that into the initial cost to even get the business in the first place. Not sure about drives, but the profit margin on DRAM is INCREDIBLY small. To pay for the R&D you must make a massive investment- enough so that most of the tech of the silicon is actually purchased intellectual property- and everyone is buying the tech from the same design companies.

The day of massively profitable computer companies is long gone- you have to take the profits early and not look back to even survive in the market. As individual consumers, we are helped along by the early adopters that paid the high prices when the tech was young- we get 80% of the performance of the current top-of-the-line, but at 25% of the cost.

As I think about it, another place where the big companies have to spend is for warranty and service. If a company is offering a warranty, be assured, the cost of it is factored into the initial price. When you build your own PC, you're really taking on the costs of much of the warranty.

You're missing the point of every major computer OEM. They spent the years *before* the parts were available on newegg/etc making sure the technology will work. None of the DIMMS or disks come out of the factory first time, perfect. There is a huge bit of infrastructure making sure the stuff works well- and that infrastructure has to be paid for.

I used to work for that company that Rhymes with "Hell" - I even worked with Tom Schnell when he was in ESG (in RR5, to be specific). The major OEMs work with Intel and AMD to make sure their stuff works, at least a generation ahead of what is currently released. This all has to be paid for. The ODMs (in Asia) get the tech *after* a period of exclusivity from the OEMs. Nothing cheap comes for free.

It isn't just JIT- it is the cost of goods sold and the cost of inventory that drives a tax bill. JIT is partially a side effect of minimizing inventory taxes.

Manufacturers generally keep the minimum inventory of finished goods (at least compared to what was held the previous year). Of course, these taxes are there because of rampant abuse. It all varies by jurisdiction. Unsold stuff gets taxed- this is to discourage overproduction to pump up numbers, and then dumping the parts later.

This used to be GREAT for those of us into electronics, as the surplus markets abounded with parts sold for pennies on the dollar.

This is an absolute problem- trying to push so much power through an under-rated cable poses a serious fire hazard. At the higher power, the cables have to be electronically marked- if not, no power delivery device will try to push that much power. I expect with the liability involved, there may be some crypto involved (Though there is no crypto involved in the 100W e-marked cabled). I really kinda hope there is some valid cryptography in these- at least to weed out the really low-budget counterfeits.

I dispute the "complete solution for customer implementation of a zero-emission long-haul system." Without the base energy source, it is not an ecosystem. This really is a bid by a LNG producer to expand their customer base. Yes, we have no clue about the source/production of the raw materials for the trucks, but this is put forth as a "green" alternative- when it is mostly just shifting around inefficiencies.

I want the option of fuel cells. I really hope that part succeeds, however I dislike the greenwashing.

While it sets the path for zero emission long haul trucking, this definitely is NOT ZERO EMISSION - the tech OneH2 uses is pretty shrouded, but 95% of hydrogen produced today is with fossil fuels. If you look at the press release and the partners of the project- there are no green energy producers, the project is led by Buckeye Partners- a fund whose major holdings are in (surprise!) Liquid Petroleum- from one of the press releases about Buckeye Partners: "...primarily consisting of the transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid petroleum products..."