Hacker News

3084 readers

469 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se

rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se

Testing Shows Automotive Glassbreakers Can't Break Modern Automotive Glass (www.core77.com)

submitted 3 days ago by rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because the tool does work, that's the whole fucking point genius.

It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.

I would never recommend a tool that doesn't do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.

Your stance is literally: "if it isn't guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I'd rather have nothing".

I'm curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?

Let me give you a hypothetical: You're stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can't be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you're unable to unbuckle. There's a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.

Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?

Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The article is about how they don't work. It's why we are talking about it. Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I'm out after the first sentence.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No it isn't. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you'd be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them. Sarcastically calling someone genius after they've repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn't an insult dude, that's ridicolous.

Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that's what you've repeatedly claimed, and I've repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.

Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.

You could just admit that you're unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.