I can't believe they are still selling that abomination. The styling is not the same as their rest of the lineup, which was a major mistake. I personally wouldn't want a car that relies on glue that much.
One man’s abomination is another man’s ideal family car :)
There is no other consumer car that can self-drive from start to finish for an entire trip. That alone will keep me on Tesla until the others catch up. Crash tests have shown that it’s excellent at protecting its occupants, which matters to me as a father of two. The cyberpunk aesthetic, whole home battery backup, and large secured truck bed are just icing on the cake.
I had the trim glue issue fixed proactively (it’s now secured mechanically) and I don’t have a light bar so the new issue doesn’t affect me. Granted, it’s not great that they opted for glue for that use case.
That's a lot of your own judgment you've layered on top of it.
For a more joyful interpretation of cybertruck aesthetics, do a image search for "cybertruck trick or treat". I volunteered to provide my truck for my kid's school Halloween party and decorated it to look like the chomp chomp monster from Mario. Kids loved it.
(sure it's not cyberpunk but it's an example of how the look can be used for family friendly innocent fun)
The frunk area where kids reached into to grab candy has no sharp edges. There are sharper obtuse angled corners at the front corners of the truck that are exposed when the frunk is open. If a kid were to run into it at speed, it would cause the same injuries as if they ran into a standard door strike plate (metal, immovable, very similar sharpness and thickness) of which my house has ~20 of them at head height for a preschooler. If I were driving at road speeds with the frunk open and hit someone, yeah that would be a pretty serious injury.
I didn't put protective tape and no kids were injured :)
i dunno. i don't think the aesthetic exists in a vacuum and i certainly am not the first person to use those words to describe it (as a fan of the genre).
YC Application - Bell Labs Unix Project
Dennis Ritchie & Ken Thompson, 1970
What is your company going to make?
We're building a new operating system called Unix. It's designed to be simple, elegant, and portable - running on different types of computers without major rewrites. Think of it as a clean slate approach to computing that treats everything as files and emphasizes small, composable tools.
What is your company going to make? (continued)
Unlike the complex, monolithic systems dominating today's market, Unix follows a "do one thing well" philosophy. We're also developing a new programming language called C to write Unix in - making the whole system much more maintainable and portable than assembly language implementations.
How far along are you?
We have a working prototype running on a PDP-7 at Bell Labs. The basic kernel, file system, and shell are operational. We've ported it to a PDP-11/20 and are actively using it for our own development work. Several colleagues have started using it for text processing and software development.
How will you make money?
Initially, we see licensing opportunities to computer manufacturers and universities. The real value is in consulting and support services as organizations adopt Unix. Longer-term, we believe this architecture will become the foundation for a new generation of computing - from minicomputers to whatever comes next.
What do you understand about your business that others don't?
Most people think operating systems need to be complex to be powerful. We believe the opposite - simplicity and elegance create more robust, maintainable systems. The industry is moving toward smaller, more affordable computers, and they'll need operating systems that aren't resource hogs designed for room-sized machines.
Who are your competitors?
IBM with their various OS offerings, DEC with their systems, Multics (which we worked on previously). But honestly, we're not trying to compete directly - we're creating something fundamentally different. A system that's simple enough to understand completely, yet powerful enough to grow with computing needs.
What's the most impressive thing you've built?
The file system design that treats devices, processes, and files uniformly. Also, the pipe mechanism that lets you chain simple programs together to create complex workflows. It sounds simple, but it's surprisingly powerful - like building with Lego blocks instead of carving monoliths.
Had the concept of an “operating system” crystallized enough in 1970 that someone would know what was meant by a “new one”? Or did they basically invent the concept?
UNIX is a play on MULTICS, an earlier time-sharing operating system.
The 1965 MULTICS paper at https://www.multicians.org/fjcc1.html has "it is an obligation to present and future system designers to make the inner operating system as lucid as possible so as to reveal the basic system issues" and cites ""IBM Operating System/360, PL/I: Language Specifications," File No. S360-29, Form C28-6571-1, I.B.M. Corp."
The wiki article implies the Professor was fine with it, so stolen is maybe not correct.
" Harvard officials were not pleased that Gates and Allen (who was not a student) had used the PDP-10 to develop a commercial product, but determined that the computer itself, which technically belonged to the military, was not covered by any Harvard policy; the PDP-10 was controlled by Professor Thomas Cheatham, who felt that students could use the machine for personal use. Harvard placed restrictions on the computer's use, and Gates and Allen had to use a commercial time share computer in Boston to finalize the software."
