The user experience of Tesla’s electric cars is centered mostly on the vehicles’ large, high-resolution displays. Coupled with custom software that provides a quick, smartphone-like experience, Tesla’s screens in its vehicles are already among the best in the auto industry. But in the spirit of the company’s habit of constant innovation, it appears that Tesla is looking to improve the quality of its displays even more.
A recently published patent from the electric car maker, titled “Holographic Decorated Glass for Screen Color Matching,” outlines a way for the electric car maker to improve the viewing angles of its vehicles’ displays. In the patent, Tesla notes that “because display screens typically have a periodic micro-structure (e.g., a pixelated structure), the color of the display screen may be dependent on the angle at which a viewer is looking at the display screen.” This results in viewing angles that have significant room for improvement, even among high-quality screens.
“The non-displaying portions of the device may be unable to match this angular color dependence of the display screen, resulting in a readily visible boundary between the display screen and the non-displaying portions of the device. Accordingly, there is a need for better color integration between the displaying portions of a device and the non-displaying portions of the device,” Tesla wrote.
To address this, Tesla opted to utilize a pigmented frame and index match glue to coat its vehicles’ screens, as well as a holographic glass panel. By adopting these techniques, Tesla expects to provide its vehicles with a screen that can offer optimal viewing angles for all passengers. This is especially useful when paired with the company’s entertainment features such as Tesla Theater or Tesla Arcade, which are accessible when a vehicle is on Park.
Tesla describes its use of index match glue and holographic glass panels as follows.
“Index match glue 206 may change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of surrounding frame 202 within a small range of viewing angles. For example, index match glue 206 may change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of frame 202 within a range of viewing angles approximately normal to the surface of display 204. However, due to the angular dependence of the perceived color and appearance of display 204 (due to display 204 having a holographic structure resulting from the pixels of display 204), index match glue 206 may be unable to change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of frame 202 within a broad range of viewing angles so that the boundary between frame 202 and display 204 is invisible to a viewer. Accordingly, with display 204 coated with index match glue 206 surrounded by frame 202, the boundary between frame 202 and display 204 may still be readily visible at certain viewing angles.”
“The directionality of the periodic structure of holographic film 402 may approximate or match the directionality of the periodic structure of display 406. For example, if display 406 includes a plurality of periodic features (e.g., pixels) oriented in a first direction (e.g., rectangles, triangles, or the like having a common orientation), holographic film 402 may include a plurality of periodic features oriented in the first direction. FIG. 5 shows exemplary system 500 in which the visibility of a boundary between display 504 and a surrounding frame including a holographic structure (here holographic glass panel 502) may be reduced or eliminated over a broad range of viewing angles. In exemplary system 500, a periodic structure is formed on holographic glass panel 502 directly. For example, laser etching on holographic glass panel 502 may produce the periodic structure responsible for the holographic effect of holographic glass panel 502. Holographic glass panel 502 may include holographic structures formed in a variety of other ways, including ablation, etching, deposition processes, and the like.”
The full text of Tesla’s “Holographic Decorated Glass for Screen Color Matching” patent could be viewed here.
A color-matched display with optimal viewing angles might be a rather minor aspect of a vehicle, but for connected cars such as Teslas, it is these little things that make a difference in user experience. A car that boasts some of the most advanced automotive tech available in the auto segment today, after all, deserves a screen that is on par with some of the best mobile devices on the market.
Tesla’s display design outlined in its recently published patent can come in handy as well, particularly as the electric car maker introduces more updates to its fleet of vehicles. Among these is a “Fade Mode,” which Elon Musk has hinted at in the past. While responding to a Twitter follower last year, Musk responded positively to the suggestion of adding an option that allows drivers to dim their vehicles’ display while a car is in motion. This, together with features like V10’s Joe Mode, could help make long trips in Tesla’s electric vehicles much more convenient for passengers.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla is pushing back against the unfair reporting of accidents involving its vehicles. Many media outlets were quick to jump to conclusions about a fatal accident involving a Tesla in Katy, Texas, that happened recently.
The driver of the vehicle, which slammed into a brick house and killed a woman inside, stated the car was operating on Autopilot. Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both challenged that claim, with Elluswamy revealing last night that the system was overridden by the driver, who pressed the accelerator pedal “all the way to 100%.”
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The car reached a speed of 73 MPH during the crash, Elluswamy detailed, and stated that the accelerator pedal was even pressed after the crash.
The story has been spread throughout the media with either incomplete or incorrect reporting, with some stories still not updated nearly 24 hours after Musk and Elluswamy posted answers about the crash on X.
The reporting has been a thorn in the side of Tesla for several years. Vehicle accidents involving Teslas are usually reported with the manufacturer’s name in the headline, while other companies are free of criticism when their cars are involved in accidents.
Here’s an example of that:
So you don’t report the vehicle’s make when it isn’t a Tesla, but you do report it when it is a Tesla?
The vehicle in your post above is a Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. pic.twitter.com/4WT3sZ2DHm
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 17, 2026
Many media outlets stated the car was in “self-driving mode” or “Autopilot mode” when the car crashed. The truth is, now that Tesla has chimed in, that the driver had manually overriden the system by pressing the accelerator. Elluswamy commented on the unfair reporting:
“This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might prevent them from using this technology that makes them safer.”
This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might…
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
The damage these headlines do to Tesla and the self-driving car movement is unexplainable. Most people do not realize the safeguards that are in place with Tesla’s self-driving functions; many people who have used it know the car would never travel at that speed in a residential area, not even on the most aggressive “Mad Max” setting.
It is important to remember that Tesla Full Self-Driving is not autonomous, and the company never claimed it was. Drivers are still responsible for paying attention and remaining vigilant. They must be able to take over at all times.
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
