this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
478 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

81611 readers
4182 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
478
California’s New Bill Requires DOJ-Approved 3D Printers That Report on Themselves (blog.adafruit.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

California’s new bill requires DOJ-approved 3D printers that report on themselves targeting general-purpose machines.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan introduced AB-2047, the “California Firearm Printing Prevention Act,” on February 17th. The bill would ban the sale or transfer of any 3D printer in California unless it appears on a state-maintained roster of approved makes and models… certified by the Department of Justice as equipped with “firearm blocking technology.” Manufacturers would need to submit attestations for every make and model. The DOJ would publish a list. If your printer isn’t on the list by March 1, 2029, it can’t be sold. In addition, knowingly disabling or circumventing the blocking software is a misdemeanor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 109 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

They are essentially trying to regulate technology they know very little about.

That's not surprising, that's just what politicians do. Especially politicians who are 65+ years old and completely out of touch with technology.

[–] VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

The only thing they are in touch with is little kids. The Epstein Class !

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I am reminded of a senator from Alaska trying to describe the internet as a series of tubes.

[–] Naia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

I mean, not to defend that idiot because he was voting against net neutrality and obviously had no idea how technology works...

... But we do call some connections "tunnels".

[–] grue@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

That was way more accurate and intelligent than this. Like orders of magnitude.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sen Ted Stevens, rest in piss.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"The internet would be a series of tubes if we rolled out fiber, but as the literal chairman of the Senate committee regulating the internet I'm somehow against that."

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn’t most fiber optics solid glass? So more a series of rods.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

Well, tubes from light's perspective.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean.....replace the word "tubes" with "cables" and it's apparent it's not completely wrong. he's reasonably correct on an ELI5 level I would say.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except the tubes he was talking about could get clogged. He wasn’t really correct. He had no idea what he was talking about.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Clogged...like a broadcast storm? IDK, I can see the analogy working, but I don't doubt that any resemblance of correctness was purely coincidental.