I disagree. If efficient designs pushed some buttons in your head in a satisfying way, you'd find people absolutely fascinated by things like the Sears-Haack bo

I disagree. If efficient designs pushed some buttons in your head in a satisfying way, you'd find people absolutely fascinated by things like the Sears-Haack body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body Yet I'm not aware of anyone who is. In fact, the Sears-Haack body is basically a toothpick, which makes it ugly as far as I'm concerned. There's a simpler explanation for why airplane designs are often beautiful. Ugly designs typically don't sell as well. So designers look for something beautiful and at least reasonably efficient. In this view, there's no particular connection between the beauty of the design and its efficiency. I know that for car designs, we've known empirically for nearly 100 years how to make a very low drag body shape. And most car shapes on the market are far from optimal. While I've had arguments with people about why the most efficient shapes don't appear on the market (e.g., someone argued they'd have less cargo capacity, which I don't agree with), ultimately, few people want to drive a car that looks like a fish or something else that's strange. I imagine a similar phenomena occurs with planes. This design is very efficient, but the company folded after about 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series Personally, I don't find the design attractive. And I doubt your average HN reader feels as compelled by the design as they do about the latest Tesla, for example.