It's easy to convince EDC people to buy EDC things. But how do you convince non-EDC folks to buy your product? Simple: Fear. The global "car escape tool market," according to market research firm Data Insights Market, is valued at $500 this year, projected to grow 7% a year and
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Because the tool does work, that’s the whole fucking point genius.
It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.
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 ?
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.
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.
You could just admit that you’re unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.