so it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an walks like a duck, but isn't a duck, because whoever made it wasn't thinking about ducks at the time. i disagre

so it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an walks like a duck, but isn't a duck, because whoever made it wasn't thinking about ducks at the time. i disagree. it's brutalist. the article says so. it meets all the criteria, except: it's a truck. c'mon. that's reductive pedantry at its worst.