You are taking a 30+ minute video that uses the Ferrari Luce as one way to illustrate a larger point. You don’t even have to watch the video: the summary right below it says

modern design landscape has shifted toward a sterile, homogeneous aesthetic driven by algorithmic influence rather than genuine human emotion. By analyzing cars, consumer technology, and urban planning, the exploration reveals how this trend impacts our connection to products and the future

This is not about personal tastes or “sense of fashion”, or anything like that. This is simply a video essay from a designer making the argument that a worldview of efficiency-maxing and extreme utlitarianism is making everything converge to a lowest-common denominator design.

You said

aesthetics is largely a province of the wealthy and privileged anyway.

And I provided a counterpoint to your statement: there are obvious examples where aesthetics are different, valued and not exclusive to the “wealthy and privileged”.

i’m sorry it offends you so much that most people can’t afford beautiful unique cars and homes.

This has nothing to do with what people can afford and everything with what people value. Just as a silly example: take a look at the type of things that the guy on DIYPerks has done. I think what he does is insanely cool, and nothing he’s done requires anything absurdly expensive. It requires skill, effort and taste.

What a miserable way to live it must be to go around associating “cost” with “worth”.

aesthetics is largely a province of the wealthy and privileged anyway.

Take a look at any popular festival (Diwali in India, Carnival in Brazil, Oktoberfest in Germany, Cherry Blossom in Japan) and you will quickly see that every one of these has its own unique style, and that by definition is not something for the wealthy and privileged.

I’m not watching 100th video on why that new Ferrari is ugly

The video is not about that. You are literally prejudging a video because of the thumbnail. It’s your loss.

You will not find anything more privacy oriented than Njalla.

Be careful what you wish for.

By valuing only efficiency and utility, you end up creating a world where everything follows the same bland cookie-cutter style, where every city looks the same and where corporations can easily shape and control our needs and wants.

Ferrari does things primarily to sell cars, because it’s a company, a for-profit organisation.

Toyota sells more cars than Ferrari. Do you think that if Ferrari should starts building more cars like Toyota it will be good for them long-term?

Are you familiar with the doorman fallacy?

According to data they seem to be doing fine

So is McDonald’s.

The argument is not that things stopped being popular. It’s that they are becoming uniformly similar in a bland way.

Why should anyone care if the answer is seemingly an uninspired “stop liking things I don’t like”?

If you actually watch the video, perhaps you can understand why. But it seems you are more interested in sticking to your preconceived notions than listening to someone with opinions of their own.

Not the point. He also talks about how all coffee shops ends up looking the same, how house decor all adopt the same bland style, etc

Status symbols not having a common appeal

You really should watch the video instead of arguing past the point. The main thing about the car is not that is lacks a “common appeal”, but exactly the opposite. It takes no risks, it ends up lacking any distinguishing feature and becomes a regular consumer product. “Common appeal” is all it has.

My guess is that Ferrari as a business cares only about taste of people who can afford their products.

The people who can afford and actually buying the Luce are not doing because the car is sexy or a unquestionable example of “cool”. They are buying it to signal status. They don’t care about “taste”.

Watch the video, and you see he argues that being a commercial success does not mean it is cool. Quite the opposite: it means that the companies are only creating products that are “safe” and follow a formula that has been proven to work.

If you don’t have trouble using the terminal, I’d recommend Beets.

He is a jackass. He is also the least important thing about this video.

I don’t get the Brave hate. I use it on mobile and it works quite well. The ad blocker is good, I can browse YouTube ads and I can listen to it even if the screen is locked.

Most people can’t magically get more sleep and lose weight in a short time scale

If I am “talking to a doctor” in order to be properly informed and be able to make a decision about my health, and if the doctor treats you like you are one amalgamation of “most people”, then what’s the point?

Notice I’m not saying “he was wrong for recommending medication”, but I am saying that “talk to your doctor” is not really synonym with “best advice for you” - specially in the US where there are so many misaligned incentives.

Sure, but don’t assume that doctors know what’s best for you.

Some years ago I had gained a lot of weight, my blood pressure started measuring up (the holter test showed consistently above 145/110) and my doctor was ready to prescribe some medicine. I said I wanted to try a lifestyle change first (better sleep, more exercise and OMAD). Lost 12kg in 10 weeks, and since then my blood pressure has been averaging 118/75.

Doctors are trained to pull the strongest levers that change the variable at test, consequences be damned. Most of the time, this means medication, long term treatment or surgery. They rarely look at you and have the chance to find the combination of levers that holistically could give you an equivalent or better outcome without the bad side effects of their “recommended” treatment.

Title is clickbait-y, but just tries to show how cheap it would be to build with clay. The “$300” figure come from the assumption that getting to build a brick from clay is ~0.03, so a large home with 10000 bricks would cost $300.

And everyone can swim in an olympic pool treated with ozone. But do we need it?

Title is clickbaity, but the video was interesting.