- 12 days
The Federal Communications Commission announced July 28 that it has banned two new categories of devices: “Advanced robotic devices” and connected power inverters produced in foreign countries. According to the FCC, “robotic devices” includes mobile robots, such as humanoids and quadrupeds, and devices “capable of locomotion, obstacle avoidance, navigation, or movement on the ground.” Yes, that means Roombas and other robot vacuums may be considered illegal if they’re produced outside of the United States of America.
12 daysThanks for the clickbait-skip. There’s still an important point missing: this doesn’t apply to ownership, use, or sale of existing devices. It doesn’t even block importation of existing models. It blocks certification of new models
- tidderuuf@lemmy.worldEnglish12 days
I think the goal is to make people either numb to this noise or become radicalized to do something stupid and get caught.
I think the goal is to grant exceptions in exchange for bribes or political favors, because the FCC has already behaved that way with a similar rule about routers.
- 12 days
lol. Guess Rumbas are illegal now. I guess it’s good the company is out of business.
- MonkderVierte@lemmy.zipEnglish11 days
Still gives you this:
but at least you know that it’s really as dumb.
But i guess that what hapens, if laws are mostly decided by a mentally underage in-group.
- sudoMakeUser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish12 days
I didn’t know the US government had jurisdiction in my country, that’s wild!
- technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish12 days
If there is at least one brown person in your country, then USA has full rights to at least one genocide.
- nyan@lemmy.cafeEnglish12 days
They’d like to believe they have jurisdiction over the entire planet, and often pretend that they do.
- 12 days
What United States do has outsized effect everywhere else, and if you object to that, organizing, getting plans A, B, and C seems to be the remedy.
- HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish12 days
We won’t tell you which one until after sports and the weather with ‘Funny’ Sonny Storm!
- iceberg314@slrpnk.netEnglish11 days
Depends on whether you consider an AR-15 to be an assault rifle or not
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 days
Why would anyone consider the AR-15 an assault rifle? It’s not any functionally different than your grandad’s hunting rifle. It doesn’t do full auto or burst.
- iceberg314@slrpnk.netEnglish11 days
It’s classified as an “assault rifle” in my state. But yeah, I suppose it varies from state to state.
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 days
I promise you it’s not classified as an assault rifle. It’s probably classified as an assault weapon. That’s a made up term meant to cause this sort of confusion, usually defined by non functional aesthetic features like a foregrip or a heat shroud over the barrel. Its essentially a “scary looking gun” ban. The AR gets lumped in because it’s one of the most common rifles in the country. It’s like trying to end car crashes by banning the Honda Civic.
- flynnguy@programming.devEnglish11 days
I bet it’s classified as an assault weapon, which is different than an assault rifle.
- Malyca@lemmy.zipEnglish11 days
Is here a legal definition or is it still a blanket term for “guns that scare me”?
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 days
There’s a definition in the military but the laws typically call them machine guns or simply ban full auto/burst fire
- AwesomeLowlander@quokk.auEnglish12 days
Clickbait PLUS American defaultism. Two for the price of one!
