I think "sensing depth" and "object detection" are the same things in this debate though

It's just "sensing depth" the same way cameras provide just "pixels". A fused cameras+radars+lidar input provides more robust coverage in a variety of conditions.

▲

simondotau 2 days ago | parent [-]

You know it would be even more robust under even more conditions? Putting 80 cameras and 20 LIDAR sensors on the car. Also a dozen infrared heat sensors, a spectrophotometer, and a Doppler radar. More is surely always better. Waymo should do that.

▲

ra7 2 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe Tesla should reduce their camera count from 8 to 2 and put them on a swivel like human eyes. Less is surely always better.

I can also make “clever” arguments that are useless.

▲

simondotau a day ago | parent [-]

Remarkable. You managed to both misunderstand my point and, in drafting your witty riposte, accidentally understand it and adopt it as your own. More isn't objectively better, less isn't objectively better. There's only different strategies and actual real world outcomes.

▲

ra7 a day ago | parent [-]

> More isn't objectively better, less isn't objectively better.

Great, you finally got there. All it took was one round of correcting misinformation about LiDAR and another round of completely useless back-and-forth about sensor count.

The words you’re looking for are necessary and sufficient. Cameras are necessary, but not sufficient.

> There's only different strategies and actual real world outcomes.

Thanks for making my point. Actual real world outcomes are exactly what matter: 125M+ fully autonomous miles versus 0 fully autonomous miles.

▲

simondotau a day ago | parent [-]

Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you think you’re in a battle of fanboy talking points. Never mind. Not interested.

	▲	ra7 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Highly ironic considering you started this comment chain with a bunch of fanboy talking points and misinformation. Clearly, you’re not interested in being factual. Bye.