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.

It doesn't get tired. It might get into an altered state. It can definitely get distracted, and get confused about what something even is so long that it's a problem. It doesn't have infinite resources.

Using other types of sensors takes guesswork out of certain decisions. If you can measure density and depth like you can with a mix of sensors which don't even include cameras then you can reliably do AEB which overrides your beloved optical-only system and keeps it from screwing the pooch.

This is true, indeed as you allude there is much that a brain does that you don't want your software to do. But you may not be able to separate all of those things away from the things you do want without going badly awry, either. Also, some of those things may be artifacts of the attached peripherals.

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.

All of those words have meanings and make sense as he used them. Your lack of comprehension isn't his fault.

What's crazy is imagining that a computer can definitely do what a brain does when we don't even know how the brain does it. MAYBE it can, but we have no proof of that.

You and the other cowards? Who the fuck are you? Nobody.

It isn't something everyone agrees on since so many want to protect Trump from being prosecuted for it. Literally every single Republican voter has signaled that they think it is acceptable to rape children.

It's not a VPN, are you still happy?

My policy argument is that adults who rape children should be punished for it.

I'm not sure where I hate them calling it an OS more than inventing a bunch of new words for everything, none of which needed a new name

I LOVE automatic evidence destruction features.

So do judges!

No. Nobody who is a genius does Nazi salutes ACCIDENTALLY

More evidence has been presented that Trump raped children than that Cosby raped women. Did you have any trouble believing Cosby was guilty?