Hyper-commuting isn't really an aspiration for most people. The aspiration is usually either having the big house where land is expensive, or having the even bigger house where land is cheap plus not having to commute. More abstractly, there are 2 location luxuries: 1) proximity to opportunity, and 2) not needing the proximity to opportunity because you are wealthy enough not to care.

Furthermore, time spent in a car isn't time spent with family - which is presumably most peoples' reason for wanting a big house. Being stuck in a self-driving car for hours commuting doesn't give you that kind of time back.

> I doubt there are fundamental reasons why sensors couldn't be made more appealing for people who value aesthetics

My take is that making them more appealing means making them nearly invisible. To the best of my knowledge, in the case of lasers and other visible-light spectrum sensors, making them more invisible inhibits their function. That's probably a big reason Tesla dismissed lidar.

Also, if there's one thing Elon has taught us, it's that you sell more people on new car ideas by appealing to their base instincts, not their higher selves.

It can. Most would probably prefer a 1 hour self-driving commute to a 30 minute manually-driven commute. That hour of self-driving time can be used for chores (paying taxes, calling the plumber, etc.) that might otherwise have to be done during family time.