They cannot actually believe that.

LiDAR has its own false positives that haven’t been solved, so it’s possible they believe that.

I certainly was skeptical until alphago and alphafold happened.

That's especially amusing considering how if you view Go as a visual problem, it's beyond trivial compared to what is required to safely operate a motor vehicle (even just visually).

Yikes. I'd be a lot better Go player if it was just a matter of seeing the board.

It is yikes - what's shocking is that you seem to be advocating for that same exact perspective for... driving a car???

Nope. There's definitely mapping, and then, much, much more. You're stuffing words in my mouth.

Not sure if I'm stuffing so much as removing the bluster

Ad hominem, but no content.

There's a new article showing up just today at HN detailing more securing supply lines (for libraries and much more) re software; it's a deep problem, not a non-existant problem. But it doesn't have to be malicious actors at work. SpaceX lost a rocket because a supplier's product wasn't built to spec. SpaceX makes that part themselves now, and highly favors vertical integration, which just means making your own sh*t. Just maintaining documentation is a bear. There's another article on HN today detailing an Air Astana near crash because of "improvement" maintenance changes (with poor documentaion) that went very badly wrong.

"But you still have to address his system argument"

Do you? It's his argument that he needs to substantiate... it's not my burden to confirm his conjecture. And even looking at it on its face... it's clearly self-serving bs. It doesn't seem to be a problem for any other car company, so I'm a bit confused as to why it's such a problem for Tesla. Of course, the obvious answer is that Tesla is cheap and doesn't want to pay to have a team that would have sufficient bandwidth to do what every other car company and self-driving system is doing...

You still have to address the argument he makes that the net effect on risk of keeping the lidar was in fact negative. You're just gainsaying it. That's not a contribution to any discussion.

I have no doubt that might be the case; as I already explained, it's obviously due to the fact that they are cheap.

So you're again gainsaying his explanation, but gainsaying says nothing that helps anyone else make a decision. How are the rest of us who aren't psychic to know he's lying?

I'm not gainsaying his explanation. You don't seem to understand that a function of his explanation is what Tesla is willing to invest and their ability to recoup in a sale of the car.

Oy.

Pot, kettle, black.

Circling, circling, circling - but no specific analysis, citations, or criticisms of Tesla's stated logic. Gainsaying isn't a positive contribution to a conversation.