Back when Elon Musk was running Tesla, he was known for saying that LiDAR technology (basically laser beams that measure distances) was not needed to create full self-driving cars. And that's why their cars instead use a bunch of cameras to monitor the outside world.

Now, I'm not an engineer, but this never made much sense to me. Cameras can only see so far and they certainly can't see at night. So wouldn't laser sensing technology that can see 250-500 meters out — including at night — be greatly preferable when it comes to human safety, even if it costs more?

I'm reminded of what I said to my eye doctor before getting laser eye surgery many years ago: "This is not a transaction where I'm looking to be price sensitive. Get me the absolute best." And that's exactly how I feel when it comes to self-driving cars. I don't care if cameras are pretty good most of the time; I would prefer to have the best.

So which is the best? Damned if I know, but here's an interesting and also hilarious video by YouTuber and engineer Mark Rober where he compares the two technologies: cameras (i.e. Tesla) vs. LiDAR. I won't spoil it for all of you, but his last test is the "Wile E. Coyote test" and it's awesome.

At the time of writing this post, the video already has more than 11 million views and it seems to have been incredibly helpful to Luminar's stock price:

But now the internet is filled with speculation that he deliberately used the video to mislead people regarding Tesla's Full Self Driving capabilities and maybe even to pump's Luminar stock. (Full disclosure: I own a few shares, but this post is in no way any sort of investment advice.) I don't know if this is true or not. But I do think that the cars of the future will all come equipped with LiDAR.

Cover photo by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash

Last week in Japan was the first time I had ever driven a car on the left side of road. I spent a summer working in Dublin many years ago but I never once drove while I was there.

To be honest, I thought it was going to be more awkward than it was. But other than accidentally turning on the wipers a few times (they were on the opposite side to where turn signals typically live), it came to me pretty quickly.

I also noticed that left-hand traffic seems to impact the flow of many other things in Japan. On sidewalks, for example, people walk on the left. And on escalators, everyone stands on the left (and walks on the right), whereas the opposite tends to be true in Toronto.

Japan is also an orderly and rule-abiding place and so these conventions are widely followed. On more than a few occasions, I realized I was swimming upstream and then quickly switched sides.

What’s interesting is how this directional convention permeates so many aspects of everyday life. Which begs the question: where and when did it start? Do the "rules of the road" always influence everything else?

The answer seems to be that nobody really knows. There are many unproven theories. Some suggest that it has to do with how horses were ridden and walked, and that ~90% of people are right-handed.

But I couldn’t find anything definitive. What we do seem to know, at least anecdotally, is that once a side is chosen, it broadly impacts how people generally move around. Pay attention the next time you're on a busy sidewalk.

I hate driving (specifically in the city), but I am fascinated by the next generation of Apple's CarPlay, which I recently wrote about, here.

One of the reasons why I'm fascinated is because so much of our built environment is built around the car. And since the built environment tends to be very sticky, I think one can safely assume that -- for better or for worse, it's actually worse -- we're going to need a lot of cars for the foreseeable future.

According to Apple, 98% of new cars in the US come with CarPlay already installed. So, all cars. And the obvious reason for this is that many or most people want it. According to this survey, about 1/3 of new car buyers say that they wouldn't buy a new car if it didn't have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.

Apple believes this number is much higher at 79% of US buyers. I don't know what the right number is, but I do believe the number is substantial and probably closer to Apple's than the 1/3 figure. I certainly wouldn't buy a new car without CarPlay.

The result is a suboptimal situation for carmakers. Apple is still going to do whatever it takes to make carmakers want to use CarPlay. My recent post was largely about the design efforts that they have undertaken. But in the end, I'm not sure the auto industry has much of a choice.

There's likely no way they're going to be able to compete with Apple (and Alphabet) from a software perspective and, in the end, consumers are going to want whatever pairs perfectly with their existing phone, since that's where their entire life already lives.

No wonder Apple killed their car project. They can just use everyone else's cars. Even if this is a departure from their typical approach of controlling both the hardware and software.