echodot@feddit.uk 1 week ago
And also because it’s impossible.
So it is actually in fact very hard. What they had was exploding explosives which are not hard.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 week ago
And also because it’s impossible.
So it is actually in fact very hard. What they had was exploding explosives which are not hard.
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually 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
echodot@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Right, so why you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
That fact also is not what the article is about.
echodot@feddit.uk 6 days ago
It doesn’t matter that it’s written in the article you took it out of context and then made it the title thus changing the meaning of the sentence.
I have had this conversation with so many people who seem to be under the mistaken delusion that any and all batteries can be made explosive, and you editorializing the title like that is massively unhelpful.