If you made the mistake of buying into the platform you're faced with a decision:

1. Rationalize your continuing with the platform
2. Tossing the platform and choosing a different platform
3. Giving up on the various platforms as all suspect and doing something else with your life

Substitute platform for anything that you have to invest a non-trivial amount of cognitive focus, time, money, etc. It's not like your abuser is going to show their stripes from the get go - if they did, you would have already moved on.

See Cory Doctorow's thesis on enshittification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Doctorow argues that new platforms offer useful products and services at a loss, as a way to gain new users. Once users are locked in, the platform then offers access to the userbase to suppliers at a loss; once suppliers are locked in, the platform shifts surpluses to shareholders.[9] Once the platform is fundamentally focused on the shareholders, and the users and vendors are locked in, the platform no longer has any incentive to maintain quality. Enshittified platforms that act as intermediaries can act as both a monopoly on services and a monopsony on customers, as high switching costs prevent either from leaving even when alternatives technically exist.[7] Doctorow has described the process of enshittification as happening through "twiddling": the continual adjustment of the parameters of the system in search of marginal improvements of profits, without regard to any other goal.[10] Enshittification can be seen as a form of rent-seeking.[7]"

Not everybody on the internet today was around when the Sony rootkit incident happened (over 20 years ago).

For reference for those who want to find out about said rootkit incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"n 2005, it was revealed that the implementation of copy protection measures on about 22 million CDs distributed by Sony BMG installed one of two pieces of software that provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Neither program could easily be uninstalled, and they created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware. One of the programs would install and "phone home" with reports on the user's private listening habits, even if the user refused its end-user license agreement (EULA), while the other was not mentioned in the EULA at all. Both programs contained code from several pieces of copylefted free software in an apparent infringement of copyright, and configured the operating system to hide the software's existence, leading to both programs being classified as rootkits. "

This is an interesting question, which probably can only be answered by triggering a natural experiment and having the ultrawealthy (as opposed to the merely well-to-do) [maybe] leave the state.

In the best interests of the side advocating for and against wealth taxes, if California wants to put itself out there for the sake of the answering the question, the rest of the nation should be happy that they're willing to be the guinea pig.

The only caveat is that you need to wait to actually see what the results are in California before attempting to pass/block similar legislation in the rest of the US. Which, in this case, would be about 5 years - the period of time in which the wealth taxes would be collected in California under this proposal.

Man, someone had the knives out for Peter Thiel when they wrote this clause in:

"(7) The following categories of assets shall be exempt from all taxation under this part and also from the reporting requirements of this Section:

(A) Except as described in subparagraph (B), qualified pensions and individual retirement arrangements, including those described by Section 219(g)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code, or foreign pension arrangements similar in nature to those described in that Section and exempted from U.S. taxation by a treaty obligation of the United States;

(B) Amounts held in Roth IRA or other Roth-type retirement arrangements or any substantially similar accounts, except to the extent that the aggregate value in all such accounts in which the taxpayer holds a beneficial interest, either directly or indirectly, exceeds $10 million ($10,000,000) in present value;"

So yeah, tax advantaged accounts are not considered part of your wealth... unless you have more than 10M in your roth account. In which case, they'll gladly consider it as part of the total wealth to evaluate when considering #1 - whether you owe tax, and #2 - how much tax you owe.

If you happen to have more than 1B in assets, and were trying to move money into your Roth (which is a taxable event, btw) to reduce your required minimum distributions, AND it caused your roth to tip over the 10M mark, guess what, it just backfired.

Peter Thiel, in the meantime, already decamped for Florida. For those who don't know why this clause was written, see the ProPublica article, which used stolen IRS data to hang him in effigy:

https://www.propublica.org/art...

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/pe...

This is starting to feel like AB5 when they tried to skewer Uber and Lyft and fucked over freelancers:

https://pacificlegal.org/calif...

And then Uber and Lyft just opened up their wallets and got themselves an exemption.

https://fedsoc.org/scdw/califo...

The prime mover behind that law:

https://thecoastnews.com/comme...

"Exemplifying Sacramentoâ(TM)s incestuous relationship with Big Labor, Gonzalez has since left her District 80 Assembly seat last year to become head of the California Labor Federation.

According to the court, the exemptions, which pick winners and losers, explicitly exclude Uber et al. even though similarly situated app platforms like Wag! and TaskRabbit received exemptions for such workers as dog walkers and yard cleaners.

In trying to defend Gonzalezâ(TM)s poorly drafted law during oral arguments on July 13, 2022, the stateâ(TM)s deputy attorney general withered under questioning from the three-judge panel. It was notable, the court wrote, that counsel for the state was âoeunable to articulate a conceivable rationale for AB 5 that explains the exemptions made by AB 5, as amended.â"

My theory about the cost of housing in California is that a lot of it has to do with pre-loading the cost of the home upfront, in exchange for a guarantee on future property tax increases.

Also, up until the recent prop 19 reversed the previous prop 58/193 laws on passing property tax assessment through inheritance, you were paying up front to guarantee that tax rate and rate of increase to your heirs.

If you think about prop 13 as rent control, it makes sense that the longer you've been in your unit, the more valuable it is... and conversely, if you intend to stay in California a long time, you can amortize the up front cost over a longer period, and reap benefits, especially during high inflation periods.

I haven't actually done the math to see when total cost of ownership breaks even when compared to a cheaper house in a state without a limit on property tax increases. But I suspect that houses being cheap in other states may not only be a function of them being in areas that are undesirable to live in from a lifestyle perspective.

You could easily address this specific case by raising capital requirements for banks that take stock as collateral. At a certain point, the cost of fronting the money becomes extremely expensive.

With that said, it's not like they're not paying taxes - it's just being paid indirectly by the bank, when they realize the capitalized interest (I'm assuming it is capitalized interest, since your example seems to assume no money is ever directly paid to the banks for lending out cash when using stocks as collateral.)

From that perspective it is brilliant - if they actually sold their stock, voting issues aside (let's assume they have founders shares that give them voting control, in addition to common shares which they can sell), they'd tank the stock price and probably get a bunch of nuisance lawsuits. By taking it to a pawn shop (the bank) and getting a loan against it, they get to prop up the stock price while getting cashflow from what would be an illiquid asset.

Speaking of which... for the truly wealthy in California, guess what they'll do in order to cough up the money to pay taxes? You got it - lend out their stock to banks, get cash, and then use that cash to pay their tax bill. The risk is then transferred to the banks... and if the banks go under in a sudden financial crisis, guess who bails them out? Not them...

I want to point out that deferring taxation on unrealized gains is supposed to be a feature, not a bug. If I had to sell part of my retirement portfolio every year to pay taxes on the gains from my mutual funds buying and selling over the course of a year, there would be a lot less capital available for investment, simply because you'd either need to reserve a portion of it up front for future taxes, or sell part of your ownership stake to pay taxes later. This is particularly problematic for investments that are not easily valued, or are illiquid. Both of which are issues that have occured during recent financial crises.

Or to put it another way... this is how ranches end up as subdivisions. Doesn't matter if business is up or down, you owe property taxes on the assessed value of the land. Pay up or have it forcibly confiscated and sent to tax auction. From that perspective, assets become less something you own, and more something that you rent from the government. From that perspective, things like California's prop 13 would be a form of rent control on property taxes.

I'm loathe to buy into their marketing and call it a wealth tax, when it's actually an asset tax.

To me, wealth implies surplus. If you have surplus, you can give some of it up and not be immediately hurt (leaving aside losing money set aside for a future rainy day.) But while that's how the proposed propsition is being sold, that's not how it works.

To give an example, let's say I own 50% + 1 of a company I found, which is worth 2B.

Under the text of the proposed law:

"(a) An excise tax is imposed for tax year 2026 on the activity of sustaining excessive accumulations of wealth by applicable individuals with net worth of $1 billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) or more, and on applicable trusts. For purposes of this Part, whether an individual or trust is an applicable individual or applicable trust is determined as of the tax obligation date, and the amount of net worth subject to tax is measured as of the valuation date. For purposes of this Section and for subdivision ( c) of Section 50301 respecting the filing of returns, a married couple shall be considered as one individual.

(b) For individuals and trusts on whom tax is imposed under subdivision (a), the tax imposed is 5 percent of the net worth of such individual or trust. In the case of an individual ( other than a trust) having net worth less than $1.1 billion ($1,100,000,000), the tax imposed by this Section shall be reduced by 0.1 percentage point (but not below zero) for each $2 million ($2,000,000) by which such person's net worth falls below $1.1 billion ($1,100,000,000). In the case of an individual ( other than a trust), who opts to initiate an Optional Deferral Account ("ODA") (pursuant to Section 50304), assets attached to the ODA are not subject to tax under this Section until specified by Section 50304.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any additional tax payable as a result of this Section or Section 50304 for any tax year shall be reported with, and is due at the same time as, the annual income taxes of a taxpayer under Part 10 ( commencing with Section 17001 ). A taxpayer owing any additional tax imposed under this Section shall have the option either to (1) pay any tax due under this Part along with any income tax owed for the 2026 tax year; or (2)
pay annually in five equal installments commencing in the year the tax is due, with each subsequent annual installment payment also being subject to an annual nondeductible deferral charge of 7.5 percent of the remaining unpaid balance."

So let's assume that my net worth is exactly 1B in USD. If I'm doing my math correctly, I don't think I'm actually subject to the tax, since I'm 100 million below the 1.1B mark, and every 2M gives me a 0.1% point reduction in the 5% tax. 100 / 2 = 50. 50* 0.1 = 5. 5% exclusion effectively nullifies the 5%. So I can be a billionare and not be subject to this tax...

Now, unlike how income tax bands work, I don't get an exclusion of the income below 1B if my total worth is above 1.1B. So at 1.1B, I get socked with 5% on everything (like how the City of Los Angeles takes a 4-5% transfer fee on the entire value of a real estate transaction, regardless of whether you're selling at a loss or profit).

Let's assume that instead of being worth 1B, thanks to being granted some extra stock options for good peformance, I'm actually worth 100M extra as of Jan 1st, 2026. To make things easy, I'm only going to say that the 100M extra is due to options that actually vested - any options that aren't yet vested have zero value.

The raw number is 1,100,000,000.00, and the 5% tax on that is worth 55,000,000.00, 55M, or just over half of my stock options bonus. Remember, as per section (c) above, the asset tax is independent of income taxes. So if I sell my stock options (for the sake of argument, let's assume I can find a secondary market that will value them at the value they were realized at) I owe taxes on them.

California doesn't give a fuck about long term vs. short term capital gains - it's all considered income. So that part of the accounting is easy. And if I already paid taxes on option vesting, I don't need to pay any additional income taxes.

In this scenario, having 100M in stock options vest, because I was at the 1B mark, causes me to effectively get a 55% increase in the income taxes I was already paying on having those stock options, which in California would be something like 14.4% (I'm ignoring Federal taxes here), or 14,400,000.00 (14.4M). Before the asset tax, I'd pay 14.4M on realized options taxes in California, after the asset tax, I'd pay 69.4M.

So that was the "happy example" where the 100M happened to be "extra" money that I would have paid taxes on anyways. I just now have to pay way more (480% more). That's fine, I'll get to write it off on my Federal taxes... oh whoops no, there's a SALT cap. Oh well.

Here's an unhappy example. I have $100k in stock options that vest before the latest funding round. I opt to pay taxes on that (there are some situations where I can defer recognition of income on vested options, but I choose to recognize the income immediately). Let's assume that's my entire income for the year. I pay $5736 in the year 2025, making that an effective 5.736% California tax rate. We work our tails off and succesfully make our funding round on Dec 31, 2025. My 100k in stock options that I already paid taxes on is now worth 100M. My company, which was worth considerably less than 2B, is now worth 2B, and I own 50% plus one share of stock.

Under the old rules, I wouldn't have to pay taxes on the market value of those options until later, but because I've now triggered the 1.1M limit, I'm subject to a full 5% tax on all my assets, regardless of whether they are gains or losses from basis. To pay the $55M I owe, I have to sell my stock options on the secondary market, and I have to sell an additional amount to settle the 14.4% I owe in income taxes on the $55M I just sold, or $7.92M, for a grand total of 62,920,000.00, or $62.92M. that's 10969x increase in taxes, or 1.09M% increase.

You're like, ok fine, boo hoo. Let me hit you with the really fucked up example.

Between when my vested options suddenly pushed me over in the last example (Jan 1, 2026 is the valuation date for purposes of calulating taxes owed), and when my taxes are actually due (let's assume in 2027) while attempting to sell my options on the secondary market, we have a huge down round. My company is no longer worth 2B - in fact, thanks to the fickle whims of fate, we're taking a huge hit (assume I founded an EV startup). Although on paper I was worth 1.1M on Jan 1st, 2026, I'm closer to being worth 100M now, my company value plummeting from 2B to just 200M.

But guess what? I still owe 55M, plus taxes on selling my equity in the company, to the total tune of $62.92M, since that number is based on the valuation post big funding round on January 1st, 2026.

And while yes, I theoretically can defer part of that for up to 5 years, I'm paying the state 7.5% on the remaining balance yearly for the privilege:

"A taxpayer owing any additional tax imposed under this Section shall have the option either to (1) pay any tax due under this Part along with any income tax owed for the 2026 tax year; or (2) pay annually in five equal installments commencing in the year the tax is due, with each subsequent annual installment payment also being subject to an annual nondeductible deferral charge of 7.5 percent of the remaining unpaid balance."

Even so, that's not the worst case scenario. I can sell off the majority of my ownership my company ("Hey Larry Ellison, you interested in buying an EV startup? Please?) to pay off my tax burden, but at least at the end of the day, it is paid, and I still own something in my company.

Here's the worst case scenario.

In our downround, we get shafted, and next thing you know, the company goes under. My options, my shares, they're worth nothing, and I go on unemployment. EXCEPT... it all goes to pay my 55M tax debt on a company that is now valueless. Infinity increase in taxes... California don't care that I'm penniless now... by the letter of the law, I owe "wealth tax" on what I was worth on January 1, 2026, regardless of how much money I have now.

I guess I should have liquidated that $62.92M in options on January 1, 2026, huh?

So, this article from the Mercury News in 2023 states that a then recent study from UC San Francisico had 9/10 homeless having formerly been residents in California:

https://www.mercurynews.com/20...

"According to the study, which surveyed nearly 3,200 homeless people statewide, nine in 10 respondents lost their housing in California. Three-quarters still lived in the same county as their last home.

And while the majority reported having used illicit drugs or experiencing serious mental health issues, the study found homelessness was inextricably linked to the challenge many residents face in finding and affording stable housing."

Link to the study:

https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/...

"Designed to be representative of all adults 18 years and older experiencing homelessness in California, CASPEH includes nearly 3,200 administered questionnaires and 365 in-depth interviews with adults experiencing homelessness in eight regions of the state, representing urban, rural, and suburban areas. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish, with interpreters for other languages. In partnership with a wide array of community stakeholders, the UCSF BHHI team collected data between October 2021 and November 2022. CASPEH was funded by UCSF BHHI, the California Health Care Foundation, and Blue Shield of California Foundation. "

From the text of the study:

"Birthplace and Where Participants Lived
Prior to Homelessness
Despite conjecture that people move to California
once homeless, our data did not support this. In fact,
most participants did not move far from where they
last were housed. Ninety percent of participants
became homeless in California, having been last
housed in the state. People who experience homeless-
ness in California are Californians. Three-quarters
(75%) of participants lived in the same county where
they were last housed; 3% were homeless in a nearby
county within the same census region. Eleven percent
stayed within California, but lived in a different
census region from where they lost their housing.
Most participants (87%) were born in the United
States. One-quarter (28%) of Latino/x, 60% of AAPI,
and 52% of âoeotherâ respondents were born outside
of the United States. Two-thirds (66%) were born
in California."

Now, the numbers may have changed since then, or the numbers might have been higher for out of state originated homeless prior to the pandemic, or the sample size was insufficient, or poorly distributed. If you have other sources, please share.

I find your statement about the electoral college weird because... according to the census, homeless people are counted as residents. Which technically means that for non-native homeless, their home states ceded part of their electoral college impact by having their residents migrate to California. Shouldn't that mean then that California benefits from population flight from other states in terms of its outsize impact in choosing the presidents and representation in the House? Keep in mind that persons includes those who are not able to vote - which includes children.

https://countallkids.org/child...

"The number of young children that are not represented in the Decennial Census has been increasing steadily for 40 years, even as the number of adults counted has become more accurate. The problem is worse in larger counties and for children of color.

Some young children are not counted because they live in households that do not submit a census form. Many young children are not counted because their families respond to the census form but do not include the child. Some adults may not realize that babies, toddlers and young children should be included on the census form.

When we surveyed families with young children in 2019, one in ten â"10%â" said they would not include their young child on the census form and another 8% said they were uncertain if they would include their young child on the census form. "

I'll point to this article:

https://fortune.com/2026/03/17...

"Six of Californiaâ(TM)s 214 billionaires have been widely reported to have left the state in time to avoid a proposed 5% wealth taxâ"but that small cohort would have collectively generated $27 billion in tax revenue, roughly a fourth of the initiativeâ(TM)s projected $100 billion haul."

I'm assuming the parent poster, when citing half the 100 billion has walked, is referring to the likelyhood that billionaires who moved after the Jan 1 deadline are betting that retroactive taxation will be ruled unconstitutional, given that the backers have explicitly stated that the retroactive deadline was to prevent billionares moving to avoid being taxed by the law.

"The tally of departed billionaires likely understates the extent of the flight. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also reportedly left the state, but not before the Jan. 1 deadline. Venture capitalist David Sacks, whose net worth has been reported to range from $250 million to $2 billion, also left the state as his company Craft Ventures moved to Austin. Zuckerberg would take another roughly $10 billion of tax revenue with him. "

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/0...

"Attorneys also say that the retroactive provision makes it a certain target for lawsuits. In addition to broader lawsuits claiming the tax is unconstitutional, taxpayers who leave before November could claim the retroactive date violates due process, according to attorneys. While the Supreme Court has allowed some retroactive taxes when there is a "rational legislative purpose," they are less likely to allow it with "the creation of a wholly new tax," attorneys say.

"I think the strongest legal challenges will be from people who leave before it's passed," said Jon Feldhammer a tax partner at Baker Botts.

Because of the strength of the legal argument, Feldhammer said some wealthy Californians are planning to leave this year, after the Jan. 1 effective date but before the tax goes to voters in November."

There are serious consequences to founders who stay in state, as voting control is equated with asset ownership under the law.

https://taxfoundation.org/rese...

"The proposed wealth tax
has distinct valuation methods for different asset classes and ownership structures. Publicly traded assets are valued based on the assetsâ(TM) market trading value, but there are different rules for assets that are not publicly traded.

Under the initiative, âoeFor any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayerâ(TM)s percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights.â[2]

Founders often hold private Class B or other super-voting shares with transfer restrictions preventing them from being sold to the public, but which confer voting control over a publicly traded company. Together, for instance, Larry Page and Sergey Brin own about 11.3 percent of Alphabet (Google) but control 52.3 percent of voting rights. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg owns about 13.6 percent of Meta but has 61.0 percent voting control.[3]"

Even if you missed the boat to GTFO by Jan 1 of 2026, you can still get the hell out and fight it out later in the courts from a different state. The decision tree, I'm assuming looks like this:

* leave before jan 1 and hope FTB doesn't decide you still were a resident. (6 known)
* leave after jan 1 but before law passes, bet on retroactive provision being challenged.
* stay, and pray that the proposition doesn't pass, or is modified and made null by one of the other propositions, or is somehow invalidated in the courts.

It is interesting to note that the 5% tax is designed chiefly to benefit healthcare. I can only assume the California legislature, realizing that healthcare has gotten a boon (to be paid over the next 5 years), will stall or reduce the rate of healthcare spending in the state during that time period, creating a situation where in 5 years they'll be screaming for tax increases in order to restore funding. And thus, a "one-time" or "temporary" tax becomes permanent.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/file...

"After accounting for administrative expenses as
provided by law, the Controller shall allocate and transfer the remaining
moneys in the Reserve Fund to the following sub-accounts, which are hereby
created: 90% to the Billionaire Tax Health Account and 10% to the Billionaire
Tax Education and Food Assistance Account. The moneys in the Billionaire
Tax Health Account and the Billionaire Tax Education and Food Assistance
Account shall be allocated as provided by law.
(e) Notwithstanding any other law, the Reserve Fund is a special fund,
permanently separate and apart from the General Fund or any other state fund
or account. The taxes and the moneys resulting from the Act shall not be
considered to be part ofthe General Fund, as that term is used in Chapter 1
( commencing with Section 16300) ofPart 2 ofDivision 4 ofTitle 2 of the
Government Code; and shall not be considered "General Fund revenues," "state
revenues," "moneys," or "proceeds oftaxes" under Section 8 ofArticle XIIIB
for the purposes ofany section ofArticle XIIIB, or Sections 8 or 8.5 ofArticle
XVI. Any revenue raised through the Act shall also not be considered "personal
income taxes paid on net capital gains" for purposes of Section 20 of Article
XVI. The taxes levied by this Act are not "ad valorem taxes on real property"
for purposes of Section 1 ofArticle XIIIA. To the extent any provision of
Article XIIIA would otherwise be construed to limit, restrict, or apply to the
rate, base, valuation, or imposition ofthe tax authorized by this Section, that
provision shall not apply to, and is superseded by, this Section.
Notwithstanding Section 16305. 7 of the Government Code, any interest or
dividends earned on moneys in the Reserve Fund shall be retained in the
Reserve Fund and used solely for the specific purposes set forth in this
subdivision and as provided by the Act."

I'm all for stuff that makes transitioning from one OS (Windows) to another (MacOS in this case) less difficult. Maybe they'll port it to linux next?

It is quite insane as it criminalizes a very specifc method of production. You can make an injection mold and produce the same part, but apparently using the same material using a slightly different process is not allowed.

However, this is California. Using pepper spray is allowed, but pepperballs are considered a tear gas grenade delivery device and illegal for use by civilians.

https://www.sandiegouniontribu...

Yes, you can own pepperball launchers. You just can't possess or use pepperballs:

https://shop.pepperball.com/pr...

So here, less than lethal weapons allowed for use by civilians go pepper spray, tasers. After that you go straight to firearms.

My opinion is that they are having their cake and eating it too:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

"(b) âoeFirearmâ has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 16520 of the Penal Code.
(c) âoeFirearm blocking technologyâ means hardware, firmware, or other integrated technological measures capable of ensuring a three-dimensional printer will not proceed to any print job unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprints detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."

"(g) âoeIllegal firearm partsâ means a firearm precursor part and any part designed and intended for use in converting a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, including, but not limited to, a pistol convertor."

"(e) âoeFirearm precursor partâ has the same meaning as defined in Section 16531 of the Penal Code."

https://law.justia.com/codes/c...

"16520. (a) As used in this part, âoefirearmâ means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

(b) As used in the following provisions, âoefirearmâ includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, including both a completed frame or receiver, or a firearm precursor part:"

"(c) As used in the following provisions, âoefirearmâ also includes a rocket, rocket propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing an explosive or incendiary material, whether or not the device is designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes:"

https://law.justia.com/codes/c...

"16531. (a) âoeFirearm precursor partâ means any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted."

So you could read it as written, and say "an 80% frame is illegal, in context of an additional part to convert a finished firearm from semi-automatic to fully automatic operation". Which is to say, something like a Glock switch/auto sear:

https://apnews.com/article/glo...

You could also read to say, well, in order to recognize when an 80% frame is being printed in that context, we also need to recognize anything that could be converted into a firearm in that context. There are plenty of remixes that use the glock parts kit for the fire control group and slide rail, and completely reimagine everything else to create a DIY PDW-style pistol.

More importantly, even if the bill is intended to be narrowly targeted, it creates
1) An enforcement regime implemented in software administered by the California DOJ, which looks suspiciously like the approach they use for regulating firearms,
2) Legal liabilities for manufacturers doing business in California,
3) A right to sue by any individual who can claim standing (they were impacted a failure to implement the law as written)

Once these three items are in place, I fully expect that others will attempt to bootstrap further provisions to expand scope of the law.

Of the three examples you gave (trigger, sights, barrel), I would say, looking at the above:

1. Trigger would fall under fire control group, and it depends on whether the software as implemented by a private company would regard the fire control group as a firearm, an illegal firearm part, or a precursor part.

2. Sights - probably not. Not part of the frame, not part of the fire control group.

3. Barrel - an interesting question. Based on my understanding, under US law, a barrel is not a firearm, nor would a barrel be considered a precursor part. However, you could have a firearm design that is a single shot breechloader, where the breech and the barrel are integrated. Would someone go as far as flagging tubes of certain diameters with or without rifling? Depends on who is doing the software implementation and what they decide to flag.

Unfortunately, you have the text of the law here:

"(3) The performance standards shall require that firearm blueprint detection algorithms have the capacity, with a high degree of accuracy, to do all of the following:
(A) Evaluate three-dimensional printing files, whether in the form of STL files or other computer-aided design files or geometric code.
(B) Detect and identify any such files that can be used to program a three-dimensional printer to produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.
(C) Flag any disallowed files for rejection by a software control process.
(4) The performance standards shall require that, at a minimum, firearm blueprint detection algorithms have the capacity to utilize an inventory of disallowed firearm blueprint files that have been commonly downloaded or shared on public internet forums to detect those files and modified versions of those files.
(5) The department or other relevant state agency shall not require that a firearm blueprint detection algorithm produce a perfect success rate at detecting disallowed files. "

I read that to mean if the trigger, sights, and barrel (let's assume that there are desktop metal sintering printers for sake of argument, or that the law also includes CNC machining), are included in one of the "bad" firearm files (this is suspiciously sounding like the classifications of "assault weapons"), then they could be flagged and prevented from printing, and in fact - it sounds like updating detection algorithms to do so would be one of the ongoing requirements for compliance.

It would be interesting to test the law in the following way.

Instead of directly printing a desired part (say, the frame for a Glock clone, which holds the rails that turn it into a receiver), print a mold which can then be used using casting or injection molding to mass produce the desired part.

Text of the law:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

As defined in the bill:

"(g) âoeIllegal firearm partsâ means a firearm precursor part and any part designed and intended for use in converting a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, including, but not limited to, a pistol convertor."

Definition of "firearm precursor part"

https://california.public.law/...

"(a)
âoeFirearm precursor partâ means any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted."

It is interesting that by that definition, it appears that the law is creating a loophole - illegal parts includes a part that is not yet considered a firearm part, if a part which is illegal is involved - for example a semi-automatic to automatic conversion kit. In order to identify the precursor part when produced in conjuction with a semi-automatic to automatic conversion kit, you'd need to be able to identify the precursor part by itself.

By this definition, even a water gun could be considered an illegal part, if there is a process to convert it to a functioning firearm part (for example, dremeling channels to hold rails for the slide, and epoxying nuts to hold the hardware necessary to add the fire control group.) There's nothing in the law that says you have to be printing an actual firearm, or parts of a firearm, only that could be printing parts that eventually could be used to create a working firearm, even if the parts as currenly assembled, cannot work, and would not be able to work without further additional processing.

This section is what I would consider a red flag:

"(f) (1) A person who has suffered harm in California as a result of a violation of this section may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish that a person has violated this section, and may seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the person and any other defendant from further violating the law.
(2) The Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish that a person has violated this section, and may seek a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation, as well as injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the person and any other defendant from further violating the law.
(3) A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneyâ(TM)s fees and costs."

You're now creating a new cottage industry for lawyers to sue people under this law. They don't even need to win, or have a decent case, they just need to threaten people into settling, as a successful court case allows them to charge for legal costs on top of the civil penalties and any injuctive relief.

Someone earlier in the thread talked about moving from a problem of "ghost guns" to a problem of "ghost printers". Literally this is shifting left - instead of targeting criminals who commit crimes, they're now criminalizing businesses and industries who sell to consumers in California. For legal liability reasons alone, I would assume pretty much every printer manufacturer would stop selling to California consumers, and the ones that do sell to businesses and consumers will jack up their prices to cover the cost of legal liability insurance for doing business in the state.

It will be like when California banned "assault weapons". Existing owners were grandfathered in, but could not sell their property to other users in state. If you own a Bambu printer, you may find yourself locked out of using your own hardware with your next software update, thanks to this proposed law...

Welcome to California.

We have a full legislature of them that are employed full time making laws just like that.

From September of 2024:

https://calmatters.org/politic...

"Gov. Gavin Newsom cleared his desk today of nearly 1,000 bills â" and he blocked 183 of them.

Thatâ(TM)s a veto rate of about 18% of the bills he acted on after the Legislature adjourned Aug. 31 (and about 16% of all 1,200 bills passed this year). That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar veto percentage in 2022, including some significant bills. In 2021, he vetoed fewer than 8%. "

And those are just the bills that made it to the governor's desk.

From Feb of 2024:

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacram...

"SACRAMENTO -- Thousands of bills were introduced by the California Legislature by the deadline last week, but how many will reach Governor Gavin Newsom's desk?

The number: 2,124 bills, is fewer than last year, but still considered "quite a few bills" by McGeorge School of Law Adjunct Professor Chris Micheli.

California, he said, has a high percentage of bills that become law up to 40% on average, out of 2,300 to 2,500 bills introduced every year. In 2023, the number was the highest in over a decade at 2,600 bills introduced.

"On average, actually about 40% of all the bills that get introduced every year in the California Legislature make it to the governor's desk," said Micheli.

A figure on how much it costs, from introduction to passage, in 2024 was not available from the Legislative Analyst's Office, but CalMatters did the math to determine what it may cost, on average, to introduce bills in 2024.

Accounting for inflation, as the last available cost of a California bill was two decades ago, it could cost upwards of $30,000 for a single bill from start to finish. However, Micheli said a specific figure on what it costs may not be accurate as bills vary in length and the number of amendments, as in, no two bills are the same. "

In the cited CalMatters article:

https://calmatters.org/politic...

"The lawmaking process is also not free: Although there are fixed costs, in 2002 the Legislative Analystâ(TM)s Office estimated that each bill cost at least $18,000 to go from introduction to passage: Each bill is given a title and number, goes through analysis by committee staff and is printed out.

An updated dollar figure from the legislative analyst was not available, but adjusting for inflation, each bill today costs in the neighborhood of $30,000. That means the cost of the 1,046 bills sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom last year would total about $31 million."

I mean... you could also try modernizing the environment.

The system as it currently exists is incredibly archaic. Even the stuff that works is aging out.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/...

"...The FAA has been forced to spend the majority of its roughly $3 billion annual equipment budget simply keeping obsolete systems alive. In some facilities, controllers still rely on technology that uses floppy disks. (Yes, you read that right â" floppy disks.)

Replacement parts for certain components are no longer manufactured, pushing the agency into the surreal position of hunting for spares on secondary markets like eBay. This is not a charming anecdote about bureaucratic inertia. It is a structural failure with cascading consequences for airlines, lessors, manufacturers, and avionics suppliers.

The fragility of the system became impossible to ignore last spring, when technical failures twice knocked out radar serving the airspace around Newark Liberty International Airport.

The outages triggered thousands of delays and cancellations at one of the countryâ(TM)s most critical hubs. While redundancy is built into ATC architecture, there have been repeated incidents where both primary and backup systems failed simultaneously, including at the Philadelphia facility that manages traffic into and out of Newark. Safety was preserved, but operational confidence took another hit."

https://fortune.com/2025/02/01...

"Some FAA systems are a half-century old, as aging tech suffers from lack of replacement parts and support service... ...The report from the Government Accountability Office found that the FAA has trouble with upkeep on its equipment, which needs modernization, while airspace demand has seen dramatic growth since the introduction of those systems.

Specifically, according to the FAA officials, aging systems have been difficult to maintain due to the unavailability of parts and retirement of technicians with expertise in maintaining the aging systems,â the report said.

It found that 37% of the FAAâ(TM)s 138 air traffic control systems were deemed unsustainable, meaning replacements come sparingly and there is a significant lack of funding available to modernize the technology.

For example, the Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model-X, which debuted in the early 2000s, tracks movement on the runway. But spare parts for this device are âoeextremely limited and may require expensive special engineering.â

Additionally, beacon replacement antennas are no longer available as they are on average two decades old. And 25-year-old landing systems used to help aircraft on its final approach now lack manufacturing support."

https://www.gao.gov/products/g...

"The Federal Aviation Administration relies on information systems to help air traffic controllers keep the airspace safe and efficient. Last year, FAA determined that 51 of its 138 systems are unsustainable, citing outdated functionality, a lack of spare parts, and more.

Over half of these unsustainable systems are especially concerning, but FAA has been slow to modernize. Some system modernization projects won't be complete for another 10-13 years. FAA also doesn't have plans to modernize other systems in needâ"3 of which are at least 30 years old."

Doing ATC at a major commercial airport stressful... now throw in the random possiblity of an ATC zero (https://ifr-magazine.com/system/atc-zero/) due to a critical subsystem failure. This doesn't even take into account hostile actors or nation-states deliberatly attacking infrastructure or messing with local airspace.

It doesn't help that age limits on recruitment dramatically narrows the pool of eligible applicants:

https://www.local3news.com/reg...

"In the US, air traffic controllers are required to retire at the age of 56, and the FAA wonâ(TM)t hire anyone older than age 31, because they want candidates to have at least a 25-year career path."

Leaving aside possible reasons for a declining birthrate (increased cost, greater opportunity cost, social trends, decreased community availabilty for things like child care, mismatch in education between partners, student debt), let's ask a different question:

Is the decrease in fertility actually a permanent reduction in births on average for women in the United States, or are we seeing a temporary statistical impact due to shifting of when women are having children?

From the article:

"One possibility, according to economist Martha Bailey, head of the California Center for Population Research at the University of California, Los Angeles, is that U.S. women are delaying motherhood and will have more children later in life.

"We're seeing big drops in fertility rates for young women, teenagers and women in their 20s," Bailey said. "What's not yet clear is whether or not those same women will go on to have children later on."

A CDC study published in March of last year found fertility rates rising among women in their 30s and 40s, though not fast enough to offset drops among younger women."

I find it also interesting (but also noting that correlation is not causation) that the peak in births also coincided with the beginning of the great recession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A different article (from the govfacts.org site, which is not associated with the government - do your own research on whether they are an objective source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...) dives a bit deeper, and interestingly shows that birthrates have fallen below replacement rates before:

https://govfacts.org/long-term...

"After World War II, America experienced a baby boom that peaked around 3.5 children per woman in the early 1960s. This explosion of births reflected returning servicemen starting families, pent-up demand from Depression and wartime delays, economic prosperity, and cultural expectations that strongly favored large families.

The boom was followed by a sharp âoebaby bustâ that brought the rate to 1.7 by 1976, according to CBS reporting on historical trends. This decline coincided with the introduction of the birth control pill, changing womenâ(TM)s roles, and evolving cultural attitudes toward family size.

For three decades from 1980 to 2007, birth rates remained remarkably stable, fluctuating with economic cycles but staying near replacement level. During recessions, couples would delay childbearing; during expansions, they would catch up. This predictable pattern gave policymakers and economists confidence they understood fertility dynamics."

I did pull up the CDC historical data (unfortunately orphaned and no longer being updated) on US births for comparison:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-...

And indeed there are peaks in births in 1957 and 1961, and troughs from 1973-1975. What is interesting is in terms of peak fertility per woman was in 1957 at a rate of 122 births per 1000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. This fell to 65 births per 1000 women in 1976, rose to 68.4 by 1980, fell again to 65.4 by 1986, etc. In 1990 it peaked at 70.90, and in 2007 it peaked again at 69.30.

I have no idea how to translate these numbers to replacement figures, but assuming that the general trends are comparable, it seems like birthrates have actually been on a decline since 1957, by CDC measures. While 2007 may look like it was a peak, that's only a local maxima.

Lastly, we might want to factor in the fact that US population grew significantly in the last 60+ years. Taking a different look at the problem from perspective of the US Census:

https://www.census.gov/library...

This article trumps the highest population growth in the US in decades:

https://www.census.gov/newsroo...

"For Immediate Release: Thursday, December 19, 2024
Net International Migration Drives Highest U.S. Population Growth in Decades"

"...DEC. 19, 2024 â" The U.S. population grew by nearly 1.0% between 2023 and 2024, according to the new Vintage 2024 population estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

As the nationâ(TM)s population surpasses 340 million, this is the fastest annual population growth the nation has seen since 2001 â" a notable increase from the record low growth rate of 0.2% in 2021. The growth was primarily driven by rising net international migration...."

Could it be that we're seeing fewer births simply because we're approaching or have already hit a maximum point in the population we're able to support in the US?