99
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
99 points (93.0% liked)
Hacker News
4900 readers
727 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Counting on a tool that isn't going to work is a major downside. Especially in the life and death situations that cause you to need one.
Except now you have spent money on something that doesn't work. It's not "no different", it's a waste of resources.
Better than nothing but, according to the research, as useful as nothing. If you know in advance it will work on a particular car's glass then that's a different story. But if you give it as a gift or buy one without knowing and it turns out to be useless it grants a false sense of security. Someone may repeatedly try using it in an emergency instead of trying a different strategy.
You say that like it's settled fact. Was the "research" peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Has it been replicated?
Did you read the article? It's the entire reason this post exists. There are two citations that will answer your questions.
Yes I read the blog post and the linked "research". There is no indication that it has been replicated or even academically reviewed.
The linked PDF is even missing sections 8 & 9 listed in its TOC.
There, you answered your own questions. Now we know that you are just one replication study away from either feeling justified or changing your mind.
I don't know yet. But now that we know alternatives to these tools are needed we can let some experts in the field figure that out. Because we now know that these are useless on laminated glass and, per the article, a third of the tools sampled didn't even work on non-laminated glass.
The article also points out how useless the seatbelt cutter is. And after hanging upside-down in my truck last December I can attest from first hand experience that the cutter would have definitely done more harm than good in my particular case.
I'm still confused as to why people are defending a tool that doesn't work. Why they want people to depend on something that doesn't do what it says it does and how that's a good thing. You acknowledge it's a rare situation (one in a million) but then think a tool with a one in a million chance of doing what it advertises is going to be helpful. That's a one in a trillion chance of it actually being helpful.
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.
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.
That IS a major downside. Relying on something that won't work in a life-or-death situation wastes precious time. Knowing they don't work is important so better alternatives can be prepared and planned for.
It’s probably AI generated click bait
Every day I grow to hate the internet just a little more for the lack of care that goes into the content
I feel this way about humanity in general and their lack of caring… In general. I welcome the apocalypse
Reject the shareholder Internet, that’s never what we enjoyed about the Internet anyways.
You're not wrong