"Normal" meaning what would be a normalized average of other countries. The typical US national park is bigger than all but the biggest parks throughout Europe. They're absent even fire trails throughout most of them, and they do not have nearby civilian residences for wanderers to happen upon.

Larger parks are closer to what would be considered "remote wilderness" in the furthest extents of Asia. You've got some of these places just hours from our biggest metropolitan cities.

Really, the only places in the world which compare would be China and Russia, and large parts of South America. But in most cases those are actually wilderness, all but inaccessible.

There's 8 billion people on the planet. Are you saying 7 billion a year do get drunk?

Out of those 8 billion, 7,999,999,999 did not make as stupid a comment as you did. Let's celebrate!

That may or may not be a defect. Human eyes are also not seeing in all directions at once, unlike Tesla's cameras.

And it has nothing to do with the CEO's lie that cameras cannot be safer than humans, when it is the automation that makes automated cars safer. Mount a lidar to your roof. Are you now a safer driver? No. It is the automation which is safer, not the lidar alone.

You skipped this quote in your hurry to apologize for the liar. Are you a politician?

"If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product ..."

"approximately match" also means "no better than". Even if you take it to mean "only marginally better than" it's still a lie. If cameras are only as good as human eyes, they still don't get drunk, distracted, or drowsy.

No, I settled with him being a liar, because it is not the lidar which makes automated cars safer than humans, it is the automation. He said cars without lidar cannot be safer than humans. He is wrong. Lidar may add safety, but it does not add as much as automation itself.

Selection bias my left eye. There are enough drunk, distracted, and drowsy human drivers to kill thousands of people every year, and they are statistically significant; there are no drunk, distracted, or drowsy automated drivers, and that zero is also statistically significant. So is the difference, and it is entirely due to automation, not cameras vs lidar. And getting back to my original post, that is why I call that CEO a liar, and you have not addressed that.

He isn't even an expert. He's a hype man, a salesman.

Frankly, he's engaging in a zero sum fallacy. Because it's not perfect, it can't be done. But it quite clearly has been done, successfully, with a drastic reduction in fatalities and injury. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than anything Waymo has been able to achieve with fancy intrusive useless sensors (there's nothing quite as infuriating as getting in a Waymo and having it just sit there confused about the homeless guy standing on the curb), but it's made by Waymo's biggest potential competitor - Tesla.

You forget that Tesla's now got a (small) working Tesla robotaxi fleet, and their capabilities are far superior to what Waymo offers.

That isn't half of it.

How many people in the audience own a Tesla?

He's talking to people who, if they are not personally intimate with fully self-driving capabilities in a Tesla, are at least aware of the capability.

It's like Steve Jobs going to Xerox to give a talk about why mice are superior input devices for navigation over just a keyboard.

No. That is not what he said. He said cameras-only driverless cars cannot be better than humans.

That is a lie, and that's what I called him out for. Research be damned; cameras already have better resolution than the human eye, but that's not where the safety comes from. It comes from being automated, and not getting distracted, drunk, or drowsy. If you won't believe that without research papers, then you're a damned fool.

Where did I say anything about perfection? It's true that automation has a perfect record of not getting drunk, but I doubt that's what you meant.

Don't make up things to blame me for. There's plenty of real things for that.

You didn't read what I wrote. The claim is that camera-only automated cars can never be safer than human cars. That's wrong, because the safety comes from automation itself being a better driver than a human, even if it only has cameras. Other sensors may or may not add safety. The do not guarantee additional safety.

An automated car can also be worse than a human driver, even with a dozen sensors. But it won't be because of the sensors.

Automation is safer because it doesn't get distracted, drunk, or drowsy, not because it uses lidar. Adding lidar can add safety, but it doesn't guarantee it.

No you don't. Humans get distracted, drunk, and drowsy. Automation doesn't. That's where automation is safer than humans.

Lidar and radar can add safety, but they do not guarantee it.

He's lying.

"Better than humans" is possible with cameras only, because most of the errors humans make have nothing to with their eyes. Humans get distracted, drunk, and tired. Automation doesn't.

I'm sure lidar and radar can do better than cameras alone. But lidar and radar do not guarantee better than humans.

He's just trying to justify his expensive system.

a) and yet, nobody pays for anything in these situations, usually. Healthcare picks it up. The price is inflated specifically because of socialized services: what's about $10k in operational cost ends up with a bill for $50k because of collusion in the subsidized healthcare environment.
b) and? We need people to fail to be guidestones for the others.
c) then the fee would be significantly higher.
c1) "normal countries" do not have parks like in America.
c2) no, they are not.

These kids compounded stupid decisions. Instead of sitting and waiting and giving their water to someone else to go get help, they went ahead recklessly. It's also an exceptional situation. You don't design your entire system around the exception.