The linked Article doesn’t say anything about any pets. The quote you used is from Waymo, who didn’t know anything about the cat besides the fact that their robot car ran it over.
The tag in the picture is a rabies tag, not an ownership tag. The collar is to hold the rabies tag, and the bell is attached to the collar.
The article has quotes from several community members grieving the loss of the cat, yet not from any supposed owner and doesn’t even mention any owner. The cat is very obviously a local stray.
Nowhere in that article does it say anything about the cat being a pet, nor does it state that the cat has an owner. It references an outside statement from Waymo where they, like you, appear to assume the cat has an owner without anything to indicate that, but nobody who spoke to The Guardian for that article said a single thing about the cat being a pet or having an owner.
The cat was very obviously a local stray. Doubling down and insisting there’s an owner without any proof of an owner existing in that article will not make reality change. Unless you can find in that article where it says the cat was a pet, or identifies an owner, you’re just making things up.
The linked Article doesn’t say anything about any pets. The quote you used is from Waymo, who didn’t know anything about the cat besides the fact that their robot car ran it over.
The tag in the picture is a rabies tag, not an ownership tag. The collar is to hold the rabies tag, and the bell is attached to the collar.
The article has quotes from several community members grieving the loss of the cat, yet not from any supposed owner and doesn’t even mention any owner. The cat is very obviously a local stray.
My quote is from the linked article.
Doubling down and re-stating your claims again as fact won’t make reality change.
Nowhere in that article does it say anything about the cat being a pet, nor does it state that the cat has an owner. It references an outside statement from Waymo where they, like you, appear to assume the cat has an owner without anything to indicate that, but nobody who spoke to The Guardian for that article said a single thing about the cat being a pet or having an owner.
The cat was very obviously a local stray. Doubling down and insisting there’s an owner without any proof of an owner existing in that article will not make reality change. Unless you can find in that article where it says the cat was a pet, or identifies an owner, you’re just making things up.