> What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. > None of the arguments I come up

> What I find mindbogglingly ridiculous is how emotionally charged all of the "the system must include LIDAR" proponents are. > None of the arguments I come up against are anything but a surface level "well duh, intuitively more sensors equals more better" along with a litany of "you must like murdering babies". A bit pot blaming the kettle there. The thing is, the 'vision is enough' crowd often manages to pick a single use case, like seeing the difference between cardboard and plywood, that has nothing to do with Lidar and then asking, rhetorically, how Lidar would help with that. By opening a discussion in such a disingenuous way, you provoke the emotional response you seem to dislike. If you want to have an actual discussion, maybe start by asking a genuine question. > in order to have a machine that can make human-like decisions Honestly, I don't think many people want it to make human-like decisions. We want it to make much, much better decisions. By your standard, we should just put two camera's on top that rotate on a platform that can only move about 180 degrees both ways. Also, remove radar and ultrasonics, because humans don't have those either. I can't give you decent arguments for using Lidar. I'm not in that field, so I can only return my own gut feeling in response to yours and I honestly don't think that has any value.