This was a strange article. These days, it's hard to tell what is (a) genuine journalism from a concerned source (b) some kind of intentional negative press fun

This was a strange article. These days, it's hard to tell what is (a) genuine journalism from a concerned source (b) some kind of intentional negative press funded by an adversary, and (c) clickbaity journalism that tries to collect enough smoke to convince you there's a fire so you'll click and share. In particular, the part about disengagements due to reckless driving on the part of other vehicles was strange: the author assumes that this was due to there being less reckless driving by other vehicles, rather than an improvement in the ability of Waymo's vehicles to deal with it. (I have no idea either, but it seems like an important question.) This part near the end was funny: “Buying large tracts of land in hilly areas, building test roads, and hiring “extras” to serve as pedestrians would go a long way toward transparently proving efficacy.” It's almost like the author of this article read The Atlantic article on Waymo's test village. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/inside-waymos-secret-testing-and-simulation-facilities/537648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/insid...