5 ms·

You mean the article whose contents contradicted its title? Is that the one you're referring to?

• moralestapia 3y ago
  >Not one accident I saw was cruises fault. >Driverless Cruise car collides with SF fire truck, injuring passenger Hmm ...
  • dventimi 3y ago
    Try clicking the link to the actual article. In your defense it's a bit of a moving target because the article and its headline keep getting updated. There once was a time when the headline said just what you said, that the Cruise struck the firetruck, but the body of the article said the complete opposite, that the firetruck struck the Cruise. Now, the article and its headline have been almost completely rewritten, and now (until it changes again) the headline says: "VIDEO: Driverless Cruise car struck by SF firetruck, injuring passenger, company says" Like an automobile accident between humans, there's a flurry of fingerpointing and attempts by both parties to shift blame. Like an automobile accident between humans, this is an evolving situation and determining fault is an ongoing process of investigation. That's why it's prudent not to rush to judgment and not take at face value the assertions of one of the involved parties--in this case the fire department--who has an incentive to try to get out in front of the story and shape the narrative to protect its own image (just as Cruise has that same incentive).
    • moralestapia 3y ago
      "It was different when I read it", wut? I had a good laugh, thanks for that. Interestingly, the title on HN seems to match the title of the page, they probably changed it here as well amirite? :^)
      • dventimi 3y ago
        I don't think you're following me but it's cool don't worry about it.