Turning Everyday Gadgets into Bombs is a Bad Idea « bunnie's blog
www.bunniestudios.com

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

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    312·
    5 hours ago

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

    • nick@midwest.socialEnglish
      31·
      2 hours ago

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

      • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        24·
        4 hours ago

        (@[email protected]:) 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.