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. - eviltoast

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

  • femtech@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    That does not make them exploding batteries, it had explosives in them. A suicide bomber is not an explosive human.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re batteries. And they are explosive because of the explosives in them. They are discrete things that are explosives.

      You’re trying to make a weird, un-useful, pedantic distinction here.

      Comment you replied to was making a far more useful correction, because people did not read the article.

      • femtech@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s a needed distinction because the Israeli committed more war crimes with what they did.