Deadly [referencing the deaths / bad journalism in california]

[PrintToLaser]

@henryhbk

It’s just that it is seriously unlikely someone had one in their house

Yes. Willing to wager the hobby laser they had in their house was not a CO tube.
And the volume, even if it was. Probably fatal to a mouse in a box, no way every creature in the house.

[PlGHEADED]

@thomas.alessi.jr

I think you’ve answered your own question. When he went to write the article he likely looked at the term “laser 3-D printer.” He was likely already familiar with the Glowforge marketing materials and knew it was the only laser cutter that calls itself a "3D laser printer.

But that;s my point - he’s expounding on a misnomer from the original article He could of stated that while GF does refer to itself as a 3d laser printer, it is not available to the public at this time. Instead he goes on about Glowforge safety statements, etc… It’s like a news story initially reporting someone attacked by a pitbull, but when it comes out that it was the neighbors chihuahua, subsequent articles continue to talk about the “dangers” of pitbulls.

[marmak3261]

Doesn’t need to be good or bad. Just needs clicks. Mission accomplished. Sad that they use a tragedy. But that is the shadow side of the news phenomenon.

[Tom_A]

I completely agree with you. I think it was a matter of writing flow. The subject became Glowforge. It shouldn’t have, but it did. Something probably just triggered in the guy’s mind while writing. And once his subject was Glowforge, that was it. Right or wrong. I’m not suggesting it was by any means a good article to have been published. It was rubbish. But I understand how, in a creative situation, your mind can sort of lock in on something and just go with it. It’s not until you shine a light on that that you go “Oh, hey! Why’d I do that?”