3 ms·

“The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point.

dang 4y ago
Indeed. We almost routinely take it out now. Submitted title was "The First Female Crash Dummy Has Arrived". We've also changed the URL from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-crash-dummy-has-arrived-180981072/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-c... to the original article it points to. Et tu, Smithsonian?
traceroute66 4y ago
> “The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point. Trust me, this isn't a marketing gimmick. You could say its the "real" first. See my comment lower down the page on Astrid Linder.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  This comment is very bizarre to me, based on the request to > trust me But I went and found your other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 It is not at all obvious to me how this is the first of its kinda instead of an improvement on previous “female” crash dummies. I know this conversation has strayed into pure semantics, but the idea that an improvement to an existing thing is actually the “‘real’ first” seems like an obvious dubious claim. To be blunt: it seems like clickbait, or at least an attempt to overinflate.
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    So you're basically saying "We invented it 30 years ago, it can't be done better" ? What a snob. Reality is that as Astrid Linder's body work proves. The 30 year old model is, essentially, incorrect. Believe what you like, but as I said, this really is the first "real" one that truly reflects the female body and takes into account all modern knowledge about both crashes and the female anatomy. Stay stuck in the past if you like. But I for one recognise the value of the work of Astrid Linter in keeping women safe.

dang 4y ago

Indeed. We almost routinely take it out now. Submitted title was "The First Female Crash Dummy Has Arrived". We've also changed the URL from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-crash-dummy-has-arrived-180981072/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-first-female-c... to the original article it points to. Et tu, Smithsonian?

traceroute66 4y ago

> “The first” followed by anything seems to be such an unbelievable marketing gimmick at this point. Trust me, this isn't a marketing gimmick. You could say its the "real" first. See my comment lower down the page on Astrid Linder.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
This comment is very bizarre to me, based on the request to > trust me But I went and found your other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33511009 It is not at all obvious to me how this is the first of its kinda instead of an improvement on previous “female” crash dummies. I know this conversation has strayed into pure semantics, but the idea that an improvement to an existing thing is actually the “‘real’ first” seems like an obvious dubious claim. To be blunt: it seems like clickbait, or at least an attempt to overinflate.
- traceroute66 4y ago
  So you're basically saying "We invented it 30 years ago, it can't be done better" ? What a snob. Reality is that as Astrid Linder's body work proves. The 30 year old model is, essentially, incorrect. Believe what you like, but as I said, this really is the first "real" one that truly reflects the female body and takes into account all modern knowledge about both crashes and the female anatomy. Stay stuck in the past if you like. But I for one recognise the value of the work of Astrid Linter in keeping women safe.