Jim Keller seems to think self-driving is a solvable problem. I find him more credible than Levandowski and an article that is written in a way that is not even

Jim Keller seems to think self-driving is a solvable problem. I find him more credible than Levandowski and an article that is written in a way that is not even-handed or objective at all. It starts with a premise and tries to convince rather than weighing evidence in a way intended to be objective. The article literally starts with anecdotal evidence, as if that's relevant. It's wording and construction makes its intent clear; it's an emotional appeal. I could be convinced that working on self-driving isn't worth it with a proper weighing of evidence. But this article ain't it.