Comment on 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.

• breadsmasher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Did you read it?

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

  It isn’t “any batteries can explode”.

  Reports indicate the explosive payload in the cells is made of PETN.

  Such a sheet could be inserted into the battery fold-and-stack process, after the first fold is made (or, with some effort, perhaps PETN could be incorporated into the spacer polymer itself – but let’s assume for now it’s just a drop-in sheet, which is easy to execute and likely effective)

  source

  • cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    What? 🤦 The comment I replied to said:

    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.

    It seems clear that “they had apparently been modified at the production level” is referring to the pagers, rather than their batteries. But the article is explaining how it could have been that the batteries were the part of the pager that had the explosives (in which case it was the battery that was exploding).

    source

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      When manufacturing pagers, that includes the pager electronics, the case, and the battery.

      Wasn’t exploding batteries

      The batteries themselves unmodified, standard batteries were not somehow hacked to explode. At some point in the manufacturing of the pagers which includes the battery, explosives were included.

      source

      • cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Most other people wont be reading it either so I don’t see an issue with pointing out the obvious misconception people could make based on the headline that talks about exploding batteries.

  source
• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Of course not, what did you expect?

  source

  • cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Of course not, what did you expect?

    I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.

    source

    • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The post content should’ve been in the actual post. No offence.

      source