You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Look, if you're complaining that not all USB 3.2 devices can do 20Gbps, I hope you also complain that not all 802.11ac devices can do 3.6Gbps, or that not all HDMI 1.4 devices can do 4Kp24, or that not all LTE networks will give you 1Gbps down.
This is how standards work. The standard defines the maximum capabilities, which not all devices need to implement. The standard *may* define some minimum capabilities for *certain* devices, like USB 2.0 requires hubs and hosts to support 480mbps (but not devices).
That's so depressing to me :(
I feel like the complaint is primarily about hosts, and the perception that a company could take a computer equipped with a 3.1 chipset and with zero modifications slap a 3.2 sticker on it, even though it could never achieve more than the 3.1 it was allotted.
Is anyone actually doing that? I've looked at the 3.2 spec and I can't find a hard requirement for hosts, though it *does* say that *hubs* have to support all speeds. USB 2.0 *did* require hosts to support 480mbps. This could be an oversight in the spec.
The objection is not "all devices should do X", rather, it is "this branding is really confusing for Joe User". And for the record, the other examples you cite are also unfortunate.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
