NoTeslaThrow

If english had static checks this kind of runtime pedantry would be unnecessary. Sometimes it's nice to devote part of your brain to productivity rather than checking coherence.

Hell, just go full erlang at that point and you get loads of services for "free".

> For instance, being distracted, poor reaction times, or not being able to monitor all angles simultaneously.

As a pitch for self driving, it's going to be a long time before I trust a computer to do the above better than I do. At the very least adding sensors I don't have access to will give me assurance the car won't drive into a wall with a road painted on it. I don't know how on earth you'd market self-driving as competent without being absurdly conservative about what functionality you claim to be able to deliver. Aggregate statistics about safety aren't going to make me feel emotionally stable when I am familiar with how jerky and skittish the driving is under visually confusing driving conditions.

Perhaps vision is sufficient, but it seems hopelessly optimistic to expect to be able to pitch it without some core improvement over human driving (aside from my ability to take the hand off the wheel while driving).

Edit: hilariously, there's already a video demonstrating this exact scenario: https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ

Human vision isn't good enough, though. Otherwise why not just drive the car yourself?

> the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was

This is just a case where there's an individual to blame. We're looking back at at least eighty years of negligence and recklessness. Basically every conflict we've been in indicates clearly we don't have the competence nor the honesty that a reasonable human would find sufficient to manage such a destructive entity.

> but vision quality is not really a major source of human accidents.

Never driven before?

I'm not really following the attempt at logic here but under this logic surely you'd WANT multiple types of sensors for all the same reasons.