Technology

59392 readers

2708 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

178

The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. (www.bunniestudios.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

edit: after 20 comments, i'm adding a post description here, since most of the commenters so far appear not to be reading the article:

This is about how surprisingly cheap it is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.

screenshot of paragraph from the article saying "The process to build such batteries is well understood and documented. Here is an excerpt from one vendor’s site promising to sell the equipment to build batteries in limited quantities (tens-to-hundreds per batch) for as little as $15,000:" followed by a screenshot of "Flow-chart of Pouch Cell Lab-scale Fabrication" showing a 20 step process

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml -22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are inferring what someone meant, and then applying some super pedantic reasoning.

I think I am inferring correctly, especially since the person you're talking about replied "of course not" to my question about if they read the article.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

alrighty then. Dig your heels in.

[+] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml -13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

i encourage you to re-read the original comment in this thread after reading the article 😂

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You should do the same.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 month ago

(@Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee:) Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.

(me:) Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.

(you:) The article literally talks about inserting an explosive layer inside the battery at production. Just like the comment said.

I am really curious: can you tell me, do you actually think the first commenter in fact read the article and was agreeing with its suggestion that the batteries could have been manufactured with explosives inside of them?

(you): It isn’t “any batteries can explode”.

Nobody claimed that, but in retrospect I guess I can see how, read alone, the pull quote I selected from the article to be the title of this post could be interpreted that way.

[–] nick@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

Delete this entire post or shut up, bro. You’re being nuked with downvotes.