> ...but that's not really what I've been speaking to, and it's not what people were angry about or protesting that caused me to post in the first place. You l

> ...but that's not really what I've been speaking to, and it's not what people were angry about or protesting that caused me to post in the first place. You literally said: > Shading this as being a blog post about weapons is a deep misservice & actively deeply harmful to the author & discussion. ... Focusing on the weapons part seems not the point of the article to me & shades a bad light/gives the wrong impression. It doesn't matter at all how angry people are about the article being about weapons manufacture, nothing justifies claiming that that's not what the article is about. While I'm sure you believe you were well-intentioned, claiming that it is NOT about weapons manufacture in an attempt to placate angry people is harmful in the same way that -say- systematically yanking the teeth out of wild cats is. If the people who get angry about frank and direct talk about weapons manufacture get angry about the article, then that's __good__. It means that the article is doing what it's intended to do, which is to start a frank and public discussion about just how easy it is to build remotely-activateable booby-trapped batteries that are indistinguishable from normal batteries, and that doing so at scale might really actually be a bad thing.