> clearly scoped problem with a more obvious answer: expand the coverage That's the problem, though. The scope is always changing. Roads change, barriers get p

> clearly scoped problem with a more obvious answer: expand the coverage That's the problem, though. The scope is always changing. Roads change, barriers get put up, roads are closed, potholes form, detours signs go up. As soon as any of this happens, the extremely accuracy mapping that systems like MB rely on stops working. This has been proven when this sort of tech caused literally a dozen self-driving cars to just randomly stop and block a single intersection a year ago. > Tesla's approach doesn't have nearly as clear of a path to advancement. The path is very clear and they're doing it. > They need technology that doesn't yet exist to get there. This isn't really the case. Self driving can be done with cameras and sufficiently advanced software alone. The software isn't 100% there yet, which is why they're still requiring human supervision. But the technology is definitely there. > Some have posed some serious concerns about whether Tesla's feature-first maturity-second approach is an engineering dead end and will ever be able to mature to the point of being able to operate unsupervised Sure, possibly, but MB's approach is by far the more certain dead-end due to my first point. > Time will tell, but I suspect we'll see Tesla adopt some of the same strategies that other automakers are taking before this race is over. I doubt it. The other automakers are using dated methods that have been attempted for decades. Tesla is the first to go balls-out on camera-only automation. MB's approach will work when cars literally drive on rails.