NotAnOnionAtAll

He wants to say “They didn’t help us” later much more than he wants help now.

Can we establish “dismusking” as a new word that means “extremely disgusting”?

But is it USB-IF’s fault manufacturers tried […]

Yes, it absolutely is USB-IF’s fault that they are not even trying to enforce some semblance of consistency and sanity among adopters. They do have the power to say “no soup certification for you” to manufacturers not following the rules, but they don’t use it anywhere near aggressively enough. And that includes not making rules that are strict enough in the first place.

They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.

I work with this stuff, and I do understand it. Some of my colleagues are actively participating in USB-IF workgroups, although not the ones responsible for naming end user facing things. They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again and we need to make sure we are still backwards compatible with things that rely on those names and that we are not confusing our customers more than necessary.

That is why I am very confident in claiming those naming schemes are bad.

“don’t even bother learning it” is my advice for normal end users, and I do stand by it.

But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.

Never said it is hard.

It is more complex than it needs to be.

It is internally inconsistent.

Names get changed retroactively with new spec releases.

None of that is hard to learn, just not worth the effort.

Any sane parent would worry about their kid getting killed a lot more than about them suddenly transitioning to another gender even if both of those were real things that actually happen.

TL;DR: The USB Implementers Forum is ridiculously bad at naming, symbols and communication in general. (And they don’t seriously enforce any of this anyway, so don’t even bother learning it.)

So his “crime” that you want to punish him for is that he improved things in a way that made sense in the context of his time instead of looking decades into the future and forcing a drastic change immediately long before society was anywhere near ready for it? Seriously?

Why?

While I do agree with your general sentiment, please consider not using “retarded” as a derogatory term. It is hurtful for people with intellectual disabilities and effectively acting as a slur against a minority group.

The Next Great Thing™ will not make a number of users that is significant to any real world scenario move away from Windows. The only approach that might have a chance to do that is something that looks and feels as close as possible to Windows. Yes even the parts of Windows that are bad. All of it, except the most glaringly obviously horrible stuff (like ads in menus). And that also includes all the programs a significant number of users care about either running there out of the box without having to jump through any hoops or a replacement fulfilling the same “looks, feels and operates almost identical” criteria.

People care about something feeling familiar and not having to relearn stuff a lot more than about shiny new features.

If Google wants to push webp because it is smaller than previous formats, and jxl is even smaller than that, why would Google have an interst in blocking jxl?

Not saying Google did not or does not block jxl, just your chain of logic as to why they do that does not make sense to me.