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

Technology

84103 readers
2985 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
495
California’s New Bill Requires DOJ-Approved 3D Printers That Report on Themselves (blog.adafruit.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
201 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 2 months ago (5 children)

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

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

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sen Ted Stevens, rest in piss.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months 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 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Well, tubes from light's perspective.

[–] Naia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months 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".

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.