> ridiculous idea by a certain set of people that lidar is necessary.
"Necessary"? Seems like a straw man, don't you think? I strive to argue against the strongest reasonable claim someone is making.
Lots of reasonable people suggest LIDAR is helpful to fill in gaps when vision is compromised, degraded, or less capable.
People running businesses, of course, will make economic trade-offs. That's fine. But don't confuse, say, Elon's economic tradeoff with the full explanation of reality which must include an awareness that different sensors have different strengths in different contexts.
So, when one thinks about what sensor mix is best for a given application, one would be wise to ask (and answer) such questions as:
- What is the quality bar?
- What sensors are available?
- Wow well do various combinations of sensors work across the range of conditions that matter for the quality bar?
- WRT "quality bar": who gets to decide "what matters"? The company making the cars? The people that drive them? regulators that care about public safety. The answer: it is a complex combination.
It is time to dismiss any claim (or implication) that "technology good, regulation bad". That might be the dumbest excuse for a philosophy I've ever heard. It is the modern-day analogue of "Brawndo's got what plants crave." Smart people won't make this argument outright, but unfortunately, their claims sometimes reduce to this level of absurdity. Neither innovation nor regulation are inherently good nor bad. There are deeper principles in play.
Yes, some individuals would use their self-proclaimed freedom to e.g. drive without seatbelts at 100 mph at night with headlights off. An extreme example, but it is the logical extension of pure individualism run amok. Regulators and anyone who cares about public safety will draw a line somewhere and say "No. Individual stupidity has a limit." Even those same people would eventually come to their senses after they kill someone, but by then it is too late.