This puts a spin on the article (which, admittedly, could have its own spin), that smells disingenuous.
She wasn’t saying “yeah, those bozos will be fine in our shoddy bots run down grannies on the crosswalk”, in a mask-off moment. The article was saying Waymo expects someone will be fatally struck by one of their vehicles eventually, but society will have accepted (Waymo’s) driverless cars enough by then that it won’t break the company. “They’ll see Waymo is so much safer than normal drivers even if it still does cause some accidents.” type shit.
It’s still wishful corpo-speak but there’s no reason to mislead.
Edit: I understand that it is the headline of the article itself but we should do better than regurgitating and echoing clickbait titles.
mainstream “journalism” is about rage baiting engagement. Anytime an article has an inflammatory title about what someone says 95% of the time they are being misquoted. In these hundreds of comments I’ve only seen your comment mentioning that. No one questions anything anymore, if its about something they don’t like then it must be true. Even though the futurism article directly links the article its talking about and the full quote/context of what the ceo was saying. I’m not a fan of waymo (and certainly not google’s evil ways) but facts seem to be a distant ancient theory these days. Pitchforks first then think later.
idk if the author chose that title maybe its futurism itself but a more accurate description would have been something like “our cars are safe but we are also prepared/preparing for when something bad happens”. That doesn’t get clicks tho.
This puts a spin on the article (which, admittedly, could have its own spin), that smells disingenuous.
She wasn’t saying “yeah, those bozos will be fine in our shoddy bots run down grannies on the crosswalk”, in a mask-off moment. The article was saying Waymo expects someone will be fatally struck by one of their vehicles eventually, but society will have accepted (Waymo’s) driverless cars enough by then that it won’t break the company. “They’ll see Waymo is so much safer than normal drivers even if it still does cause some accidents.” type shit.
It’s still wishful corpo-speak but there’s no reason to mislead.
Edit: I understand that it is the headline of the article itself but we should do better than regurgitating and echoing clickbait titles.
mainstream “journalism” is about rage baiting engagement. Anytime an article has an inflammatory title about what someone says 95% of the time they are being misquoted. In these hundreds of comments I’ve only seen your comment mentioning that. No one questions anything anymore, if its about something they don’t like then it must be true. Even though the futurism article directly links the article its talking about and the full quote/context of what the ceo was saying. I’m not a fan of waymo (and certainly not google’s evil ways) but facts seem to be a distant ancient theory these days. Pitchforks first then think later.
idk if the author chose that title maybe its futurism itself but a more accurate description would have been something like “our cars are safe but we are also prepared/preparing for when something bad happens”. That doesn’t get clicks tho.