Honestly, what cracks me up about a lot of the anti-Tesla replies here is that they're arguing against a future that's... already in the rear-view mirror.
Waymo is proving that a high-cost, lidar + HD map stack can be made very safe (but not very comfortable or efficient) in tightly geo-fenced zones. Cool. That doesn't scale to millions of cheap robotaxis in hundreds of cities unless you're fine with "robotaxis as a boutique product." Tesla's entire bet is the opposite: minimal hardware cost, vision-only, and a massive real-world training set from a fleet that already exists. Just look at the recent videos of FSD driving confidently on snowy, unplowed roads with no HD map crutch — Waymo is nowhere near doing that. They'd have to ditch lidar and HD maps to even try to get there... HMMM. Funny.
This article literally shows why the Cybercab design choice is correct: if 90% of Waymo rides are 1–2 passengers and almost nobody sits in the front, then a small, steering-wheel-less 2-seater is exactly what the data says you should build. Complaining that it's "fantasy" while simultaneously waving around Waymo stats that justify Tesla's layout is kind of wild.
Yeah, Tesla's timelines have been garbage. That's a fair criticism. But "Elon is bad at dates" ≠ "lidar wins forever." Humans drive with vision only. There's nothing in physics that says a large end-to-end vision model can't eventually outperform a Frankenstein sensor stack that costs as much as the rest of the car.
In a few years, these "Tesla will crawl back to lidar" comments are going to read like the people who swore phones needed physical keyboards forever.