185508738
submission
kenh writes:
From the article:
The version that reached (Gov. Newsom's) desk is far narrower than the bill that first cleared the Assembly in May. The Senate stripped several of the most aggressive enforcement tools after lawmakers and industry groups argued they were technologically infeasible or overbroad. Gone are the original criminal misdemeanor for disabling the software, the $25,000-per-violation civil penalties, the mandatory manufacturer self-attestation process, and a public roster of âoecompliantâ models.
The final text keeps an exemption for printers used exclusively to make entertainment-industry props and lets the California Department of Justice create additional exceptions by regulation. It also shields people who share digital firearm files solely to test or develop blocking software.
What remains is a delayed, contingent mandate. Beginning no later than July 1, 2027, the DOJ must check quarterly whether ASTM International has published industry standards for firearm-blocking technology on 3D printers. If ASTM issues qualifying standards, the department then has 24 months to publish its own written guidance or regulations describing minimum performance requirements. One year after those state standards appear, it would become unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer a 3D printer in California that lacks compliant blocking technology. If ASTM has not published standards by July 1, 2029, the department is relieved of further duties under the act, and the sales restriction may never take effect.
The bill does not operate in a vacuum. California already prohibits unlicensed people from using a 3D printer or CNC mill to manufacture a firearm under Penal Code  29185. Separate statutes restrict machines whose âoesole or primary functionâ is to make guns and create civil liability for distributing âoedigital firearm manufacturing codeâ to unlicensed persons. AB 1263 and related 2025â"26 measures further expanded definitions of firearm manufacturing machines and accessories effective January 1, 2026. AB 2047 tries to move one step upstream by making the printer itself refuse certain files.
130597240
submission
kenh writes:
Over at science direct.com they report on a French "retrospective" study of just over 1,000 patients across all age groups with very good results.
From the paper:
Results
A total of 1061 patients were included in this analysis (46.4% male, mean age 43.6 years – range 14–95 years). Good clinical outcome and virological cure were obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7%).
Prolonged viral carriage was observed in 47 patients (4.4%) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis (pA poor clinical outcome (PClinO) was observed for 46 patients (4.3%) and 8 died (0.75%) (74–95 years old). All deaths resulted from respiratory failure and not from cardiac toxicity. Five patients are still hospitalized (98.7% of patients cured so far). PClinO was associated with older age (OR 1.11), severity at admission (OR 10.05) and low HCQ serum concentration. PClinO was independently associated with the use of selective beta-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers (p less than .05). A total of 2.3% of patients reported mild adverse events (gastrointestinal or skin symptoms, headache, insomnia and transient blurred vision).
Conclusion
Administration of the HCQ+AZ combination before COVID-19 complications occur is safe and associated with very low fatality rate in patients.
107568240
submission
kenh writes:
From the article:
A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.
The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Mondayâ(TM)s Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
101932930
submission
kenh writes:
Close to 4,000 people wereÂenrolled in the basic income pilot program in Thunder Bay, Lindsay, Hamilton, Brantford and Brant County.
The pilot project started in April 2017. It was originally set to last three years, and explore the effectiveness of providing a basic incomeÂto thoseÂliving on low incomesÂâ"Âwhether theyÂwere working or not.
Under the project, a single person could have received up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earned.ÂA couple could have received up to $24,000 per year.ÂPeople with disabilities could have received an additionalÂ$6,000.