This take is widespread on this venture capital fan forum, but it's both incorrect and a retreat. The Cybertruck was poorly thought out, sold teribly, and is now dead. By example it has discouraged future diversity in automotive design.
Good design that breaks the mold and then succeeds for that reason is what changes the world. Bad design that starts from the desire to be different without understanding the forces that led to the preexisting equilibrium is what we got. If you start out with hundreds of billions of dollars you can fake it for much longer, but if your premise is fundamentally economically incorrect then it will only last as long as you can subsidize it.
It is impossible for someone's statement of preference to be incorrect. You may differ in your opinion, but the gp is not wrong for having their own opinion.
I read their comment as meaning, "If you really care about design that doesn't look like anything else, you should be wary of the Cybertruck, as its commercial failure actually discourages future innovation in automobile design."
They weren't stating their preference for the form of the vehicle itself. They were stating their preference for designs that break the mold. But if what you desire is cars that break the mold, the Cybertruck has set the world back.
My understanding is more that economy and safety standards have driven us towards these aerodynamic and impact absorbing shapes. I may be quite wrong though!
The cybertruck had good enough safety ratings, but kinda just decided to not care about the aerodynamics and economy side. Which freed Elon up a lot in terms of style.
Personally, I also agree that it was refreshing to see something bold out there on the road. It's just that the final product looked just 'off' enough to make it look bad in the end.
Like, it's wheel base is about 6 inches too long and the ride height is about 6 inches too low, making it look a bit toddler-y to my eyes. The bed was also just not practicable and too small (something I see on a lot of trucks these days). The speed was good, the torque was great, the giant screen you can't feel when driving was not. The seats were uncomfortable for my build.
Overall, the car was a statement, one that just barely missed the mark to my eyes, but it did miss
> The bodywork of the vehicle is particularly problematic: the sharp-edged, rigid stainless steel panels of the Cybertruck violate EU safety regulations, which primarily serve to protect vulnerable road users.
The US safety ratings are incredibly easy to game. I have a sibling who used to be a crash test engineer, and we used to get bored of them endlessly ranting about it at family gatherings.
In many other countries it wasn’t even street legal because it couldn’t meet minimum safety standards.
Except it is very ugly and the triangle profile created a impractically large windshield and caused the bed cover to completely block the rear window when closed.
Ugly is both subjective but also quantifiable. Tesla should have used surveys to see what percentage of people actually liked the way the cybertruck would look. But of course they didn't because it was Musk's design and he arrogantly pushed it to market.
Thr angular Cybertruck design was actually not primarily for show. It comes from the fact that its body is made from cold-rolled, full-hard stainless steel that can't be stamped into arbitrary shapes. Ordinary car bodies are made from steel that can be stamped but is not stainless, so they require paint.
The original design was that the body would be made from these panels. The exoskeleton structure.
The Cybertruck that was released did not have that, instead the panels are just normal body parts connected to a standard car frame underneath - like any other car.
They didn't go for looks though. The whole premise was ease of manufacturing. An interesting idea that soon proved to be invalid. But they pushed forwards anyway for some reason (and we all know that reason).
Meanwhile all other Tesla models look exactly the same. Doesn't help that people buy them like the other appliances in their lives, meaning that they're almost all white too.
It doesn't use cookies, but rather fingerprinting. However, the detection is very inconsistent, and when I was testing it, I sometimes found that the counter had been reset in the normal window but was still at the value from before the restart in the private tab.
So I worked for a company who's product was sensor networks for this exact situation, and the European company who bought us had a cloud-only solution they wanted to replace our on-premise product with. Thankfully most hospitals and research institutions in the states are smart enough to reject cloud-based solutions for this exact reason. In theory you could penetrate our systems but it would have to be a very direct, specific attack to be able to do it. My colleague in Germany has been an SWE contractor since 1978 and is genuinely the best engineer I've ever worked with. No matter how off the wall my ideas were he'd already considered it and eliminated it as an option.
We're expert of the EU MDR, the "new" medical device regulation, and there are many Cloud services trying to seduce customers. But clearly no-one wants to have their software online: Medical industry is crossing the chasm when they can control when their Cloud software is upgraded, but the aerospace is a hard no and the ISO 26252 field (automotive) is even worse. With AI and Trump, it gives them reason.
The Cloud thing is completely driven by software companies, not by their customers. I'm really surprised that we did succeed at forcefully moving unwilling customers to the Cloud, it really doesn't answer their needs.
But downloadable software today is completely free to hack. Downloadable software is akin to open-sourcing your software.
Yes, especially after this has now been happening again and again. First case can be excused as usual bad practices and lazyness. But it should have been a wake up call causing anyone else operating commercial freezers (or even other equipment) to review if/how they are connected to the Internet. Anyone getting hit now is maliciously incompetent.
You can learn from TSMC or power grid networks. These networks are highly secure and must be separated into internal and external networks. There shouldn't even be any chance for the external network to access the internal network.
Of course, physical ports are also a risk, but they're easier to detect. At least someone has to come in.
reply