3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo 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.