Skip Navigation

User banner

Arthur Besse

@ cypherpunks @lemmy.ml

Posts
124
Comments
254
Joined
5 yr. ago

cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 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.

    Jump

  • 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.

    Jump

  • Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?

    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:

    The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.

    That fact also is not what the article is about.

  • 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.

    Jump

  • sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

  • 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.

    Jump

  • (@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.

  • 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.

    Jump

  • Of course not, what did you expect?

    I encourage you to, it's pretty interesting.

  • 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.

    Jump

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

  • 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.

    Jump

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Jump

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Jump

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Jump

  • Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn't.

  • 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.

    Jump

  • Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn't.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You have now banned me from both of those communities

    I actually banned you from both of them at the same time I deleted those two protonmail posts, but then unbanned you a minute later after reviewing your account further.

    You can view your modlog here.

    You have deleted another post of mine

    I commented about that deletion here.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • fwiw i deleted the crossposts of this post from /c/privacy@lemmy.ml and /c/opensource@lemmy.ml (because protonmail is a faux-opensource snakeoil privacy product) and flagged the posts in other communities as spam.

    i encourage anyone who thinks protonmail's non-interoperable end-to-end encryption is useful to read my comment about it here.

    edit: wow, such downvotes. i elaborated here.

  • Hospital staff get baked potato as a 'Christmas bonus' from work (and got taxed on it)

    Jump

  • this "story" is spam, actually.

    the dearth of people in this thread who can identify it as such is sad evidence of a lack of media literacy.

    edit: i can't reply to @kescusay@lemmy.world because i deleted this post from lemmy.ml, but, i see they replied:

    It’s the Independent, not spam. Indy100 is part of the Independent.

    so, ok, I looked, and yeah, I see this "indy100" site is indeed part of a business called "The Independent" which carries the name of a former newspaper.

    But this story, like most of the content on indy100, appears to have no basis in reality. It is not "news", it is dishonest garbage pretending to be factual for the purpose of selling the audience's attention to advertisers. aka spam.