kryptonianCodeMonkey

At one point in time advertisements were in dedicated sections of newspapers, magazines, posted in business windows and maaaaybe sent out in mailors. And that was about it. If you didn't want to be advertised to you didn't read the ads. When TV broadcasts first started there was an dilemma over whether people would tolerate TV commercial breaks, and whether they were even ethical since you couldn't just turn the page if you didn't want to read the ad. We're light-years beyond that mindset and level of consumer respect now. Ads that try to appear to be anything but ads, individually targeted ads, unskippable ads on CPR instructional videos, ads in search results, ads on floating billboards among the beach, ads on your refrigerator, ads on your personal tablet or laptop, ads on the damn gas pump... it's fucking dystopian.

You can't sue the federal government unless they give you explicit permission to. They have sovereign immunity except when they intentionally waive that immunity, such as with the Federal Tort Claims Act. You can challenge the constitutionality of a law or policy, fight to have it overturned, but you cannot seek repayment for damages caused by that law or policy without meeting the conditions under which the government has said you can.

The FTCA is the primary mechanism to sue the fed and the allowances of it are pretty narrow. Tariffs, even illegal ones, would likely fall under the discretionary function exception, which would mean that you couldn't sue. But even if it didn't fall under that exception, in order to sue, you must first submit an FTCA claim for repayment of damages to the goverment and wait for their response. Claims must be made within 2 years of the damages and they have 6 months to respond. Only once actually denied can you actually sue, and it must be within 6 months of their response. And then you have to materially prove damages directly caused by the federal government, specifically.

If the pattern fits for all cases, you've found the pattern (or one of multiple if there's more than one solution). I figured it out and I'm certain of it.

Your comment helped me solve it.

"Oops!" turns on trash compactor

Didn't he already do that before? Am I imagining that?

Well they have my vote. My bar isn't very high anymore after the last few elections

Oh good. I don't think we need to add a 137 year old Hitler to the current political situation. It's bad enough as it is. I assume your Nans haven't Holocausted anyone. ...right?

Both Hitler and Nana?

Didn't your nana?

Frankly it seems more like a mild inconvenience then actual prevention. I don't really care how smart a software gets, it can't predict and prevent all possible configurations of prints that could possibly be used to create functioning guns without being so overly restrictive that even perfectly innocent prints would get flagged constantly in which case they simple won't sell to normal users.

It would be a constant game of whack a mole with new creative designs, using multiple printers or with non-printed parts in the design. But no hardware or software that a smart enough engineer has their hands on is impervious to mods either, especially if they're motivated like someone seeking to produce firearms would be.

It's an overreaching law that will likely solve little to nothing, but might make 3d printers in general a bit more annoying to work with. "Sorry, you can't make your dice tower because there's a 16 percent change that it could be capable of firing an RPG out of the dragon's mouth. Please make your design at least 12 percent less gun-ish and try again."

I don't really see how ceasing to exist is justice, nor how the fact that your nana and Hitler had the same ending is a comfort. But to each their own, I guess.