Re:Camera Crushes Lidar, Claims Startup
by vasilipupkin on Thursday August 24, 2023 @05:26PM
(#37254755)
the issue is, more of these sensors costs a lot of money, so can you get to the point that it's a business and not a science experiment if each vehicle costs a massive amount? if you can get away with some sensors and not others, you have lower costs. Of course, if cost is not a factor, more sensors is better.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
"The argument only makes sense if you want to save money, but then say you are being cheap up front."
Re:Camera Crushes Lidar, Claims Startup
by vasilipupkin on Thursday August 24, 2023 @06:08PM
(#37255215)
well, you aren't being cheap. If you can get to where you want to go without lidar, why would you want to spend more money on lidar. If you can't it's a different matter.
Great. The point was if they want to say that, they can say that, and the people in this thread (including me) would sigh with acceptance; but, instead, they make the argument that it is somehow better NOT to have the lidar, as they supposedly are now (as opposed to a while back) claiming that it is so difficult to "fuse" the knowledge of the various sensors that you are better off picking only one.
Re:Camera Crushes Lidar, Claims Startup
by vasilipupkin on Monday August 28, 2023 @09:20AM
(#37293512)
sure, but I think Musk has said it multiple times as well.