It'd be more tolerable a design without rich Elon bros being their primary market. They're both dorky, but the context is key. If the cybertruck was affordable and well built by a less shitty company, it wouldn't represent the decline of American civilization.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Hmmm. Almost as if i specified

design

for a reason.

[–] TotallynotJessica 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bold to assume the design isn't embedded in the culture, technology, and economics in which it is built. If you tried to take a modern shape and build it in the 40s, you'd get a shitty car by design. If you tried to buy an electric car in rural America with no electric car infrastructure, it would be a bad investment based on its design. If the classic jeep wasn't a staple of WWII, or if the 50-70s era mustangs weren't in so many action movies, those designs wouldn't have the popularity they have now.

This goofy Fiat is a joke, but the cybertruck is offensive. Trucks are very useful for moving stuff with fewer trips in rural America, but the cybertruck sucks at hauling, and isn't in an area with abundant charging infrastructure. Some of the trunk space would permanently go to keeping a charger on hand if you tried to use it in rural areas. It's larger and bulkier than necessary for cities, meaning it would be better as a sedan or compact. It's expensive and poorly made, but unlike the multipla, it's impractical anywhere but wealthy suburbs at a fundamental level. At least the multipla has typical Fiat usefulness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

My fault for being unclear—i'm only talking about the aesthetics.