I didn't mention Waymo. I was talking about 360 cameras. You previously mentioned using 1 camera to reduce complexity. Here it is.
You mentioned sensor pods on the roof out of the blue so I thought you were referring to Waymo.
You were the one suggesting 1 camera to reduce complexity.
Yes, I was taking the argument that less sensors is better to its extreme to show how absurd it is.
OK. So, you would prefer to be an attentive driver at risk of being hit by another car due to your car making erratic and unpredictable manoeuvres, than be an inattentive driver at risk of smashing headlong into something? I would prefer not have to worry about either scenario personally.
It's not either/or. Put the right sensors, including lidar, and get the software right, and you won't have to worry about either case. After all, the goal should be a car that does not phantom brake and does not hit stuff regardless of whether the driver is attentive or not.
Let's hope Lucid is able to deliver a solid, reliable system to paying customers all over the world that sets the bar for the whole automotive industry.
Yes, I hope Lucid is able to deliver a solid and reliable system. I do think it is silly to jump to conclusions that Lucid won't deliver a reliable system just because you think their lidar is superfluous.