this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
433 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

81611 readers
4347 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
433
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
174 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
[–] 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 3 points 18 hours 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 22 points 1 day ago

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

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sen Ted Stevens, rest in piss.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 5 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 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Well, tubes from light's perspective.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 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 1 points 19 hours 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 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours 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.