Your initial claim was that the submitted article was "propaganda" in reaction to the NYT article. I think that claim doesn't make any sense for a number of re

Your initial claim was that the submitted article was "propaganda" in reaction to the NYT article. I think that claim doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons: a) The article wasn't about Waymo, and they would not have seen any need to respond to it. b) You're implying that this article is somehow scandalous, and that something new is being revealed, and that's why they're doing this "propaganda". That's not the case. This is not new. Waymo has described their remote operator setup for years, and nothing new is being being revealed here about how the companies operate in general, and about Waymo in specific (see point a; the article has no information about Waymo except an unsourced lie and a "no comment statement"). c) The article has nothing to do with the submitted post. For this "propaganda" to be effective at refuting the article, the two would need to be in some way about the same thing. The submission is about accidents, in particular accidents leading to injuries. Remote operators have nothing to do with such accidents. Your NYT article does not suggest any such mechanism. You have not suggested any mechanism by which that happens. You have not even said what you think the problem is. Do you think the remote operators are covering up for accidents? Causing accidents? Avoiding accidents? As far as I can tell the article is a total nothingburger, and your pushing of it in this context is just a non sequitur. Again: Why do you think your NYT article has anything to do with the subject of this blog post? What's the part you think is scandalous and demands a response?