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