This article isn’t behind a paywall, you just have to make an account.

Lmao bringing up what Waymo said in their public statement a third time will not help your case like it’s a magical incantation. Nowhere does it say Waymo was able to identify or reach out to an owner, nor does the article speak of an owner who was reached out to by Waymo. Some canned text on a public statement is not an authoritative source of information on an individual animal you donut.

Unless you can find the part in this article where somebody calls the cat a pet, or identifies literally anybody as an owner, you’re just hallucinating what isn’t there. Are you an AI? It would explain the emoji.

Ah yes, local strays get tagged and collared and have bells.

Correct. Neighborhoods cats with no owner often have people take them to vets and get vaccinated/spayed. This keeps the cat from having its ears clipped, being dumped in a different neighborhood, or even being put down. They would want any animal control to know they’ve done this, so they need to display the tag. For this they buy a collar, as tags can’t be suspend in midair by magic. The fact that the collar they bought has a bell on it is unremarkable, many cat collars have little bells in them.

They also have their ‘family’ members who run the bodega they live out of get upset when other people start memecoins to exploit the situation when they are not family

The cat doesn’t live out of the bodega, it lives on the street. It visits the bodega. More hallucinations from you. Did you even read the article? Or just Waymo’s public statement. Do you work for Waymo?

I’m very glad you’re done trying to pin the fault of this tragedy on innocent people. We can revisit it if any information comes out that supports your assertion.

Your cat

Whose cat was it again? Whose fault is it?

Whose responsibility would it be to keep the cat inside?

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 article is relaying information from an authoritative group of people who are informing the article, (those who know the cat and are being interviewed for the purpose of this article) and Waymo (Who is unfamiliar with the cat besides the point that they’ve confirmed they ran it over, and did not speak to the Guardian for this article).

There is no mention of an owner from that authoritative group of people.

The letter sent out by Waymo is not an authoritative source of information for this cat, nor is it asserting that the cat does in fact have an owner. It’s just an uninformed assumption by a third party with no first hand knowledge of this cat in order to cover a base because it’s boilerplate. An owner is mentioned in it for the same purpose as the phrase “To whom it may concern”

You have got to work on your media literacy.

Nowhere in the article does it mention the cat having an owner, besides the statement released by Waymo.

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.

Yes I read it, there is no owner mentioned in that article, and it was very obviously a stray cat.

Your quote is just an example of the fact that Waymo has a canned, boilerplate template ready to go for when they run over an animal.

There are no pets mentioned in the linked article.

Who told you that cat was someone’s pet?

I don’t find your earlier quote on that page anywhere.

Here’s a screenshot

My claim is not that they ever said that explicitly, but that their marketing claimed ‘your privacy came first’ without any similar-size mention how it would be limited by Swiss law.

Their marketing around privacy as it exists right now is extremely up front and detailed about the fact that it’s based on Swiss law. If you’re going to claim that at some point in time it didn’t, you’re going to have to show some kind of proof of that. I don’t recall any time in the last few years that they weren’t touting Swiss law as the very basis for their privacy claims.

Yeah it’s getting really annoying at this point.

Here you go: https://proton.me/mail

Just scroll down. Each selling point is marked with title case text, followed by their reasoning.

Under the first one that mentions privacy ( Highest standards of privacy) it says:

Proton is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland, meaning your data is protected by some of the world’s strictest privacy laws.

The entirety of their reasoning behind their claim of “Highest standards of privacy”, right on their main landing page is based on the limitations of Swiss Law and literally nothing else. It even contains a link to a blog post where they go into detail on how Swiss Law affects what they can and can’t do lol.

Can you find me a way back machine link to their website where they told you that they aren’t subject to or otherwise do not comply with Swiss law?

they sold themselves as “private”, not "private up to the extent of Swiss law

No, they sold themselves as “private up to the extent of Swiss law”.

No. The impression their marketing gave was that they followed Swiss law.

Also pay attention to what the service says and what it doesn’t. We get into this spot regularly because of things people assumed about Protonmail without being told.

On the contrary, lots of us write our own scripts and programs. And when considering how to self host that software, serverless is a perfectly valid choice.

Just because many self hosters are hobbyists who are only capable of using things off the shelf doesn’t make self hosting infrastructure outside the scope of… selfhosting lol

Yeah but they were afraid of it being used on them in the fictional war on Christianity. Its perfectly fine when it’s used on someone else.

The definition in this context is clearly referring to the political party, not your stance towards systems of government.