> This requires a specific set of actions by a crewman on the bow.
That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified).
Victim blaming is not cool. These types of over-the-top legal threats in response to good-faith engagement are extremely common and it's why bug bounties have safe harbor protections.
That's going to be true for many car sales. People don't usually downgrade on cars, and there is real progress on car features over a typical period between buying cars. It'll be especially true if a brand like Tesla where most if their sales are coming from people who previously owned significantly cheaper cars.
I do not know which country you live in, but in the 1990s in West Europe children did not clean chimneys. But I suppose you knew that already and just wanted to discredit a comment that might be perceived as anti-Waymo. Waymo is one of the sacred cows here.
> was won by the candidate who spent about 1/3rd less than their opponent
I guess the truth of that statement depends on whether or not you consider the $36 billion dollars that Musk has lost on Twitter to have been "spent" or not.
> I would argue that running a sale is benign compared to manipulating words in social media post to see how it influences your mood. What effect will that have on people with already fragile psyches?
This is such a dumb or disingenuous position.
Let's imagine you are a social media company, and these things happen:
1. people (researchers, media, doesn't matter) are reporting that they think the proliferation of negative sentiment on your social media is having a negative affect on user's moods.
2. based on your extensive experience and understanding of user behavior you think they are wrong. but still you recognize that if they are actually right it would be best for you to know that so you can make changes to fix it.
3. so, you decide to run an experiment where for some of the users you reduce the likelihood that they will see the types of posts that those researchers have identified as problematic, and you monitor the same sorts of signals that those researchers were looking at.
4. you get the results of your experiment. it doesn't actually matter what they say, if they say there's no effect, you now know that and apply it in the future, if they say there's a negative effect you try to mitigate it, if they say there's a positive effect maybe you try to amplify it. but really, that's not important because...
5. you tell people that you've done this research and made or not changes based on it. or it comes out in a leak that you did this by a disgruntled ex employee, or in a court case, also doesn't matter.
6. those same people as in (1), or others, frame the experiment you've done as a terrible thing where you were manipulating people's emotions for your own gain.
It is completely honest. The question was "What fraction are driven by a remote safety driver???". Fleet response agents do not have the ability to remotely drive the vehicles. From your own source: "The Waymo Driver [...] is in control of the vehicle at all times".
That's not true. While well maintained equipment would require a specific action, it is not uncommon for accidental anchor drops to happen, typically due to poorly or improperly maintained equipment. It's also common that ship is unaware that it has dropped the anchor (depending on the depth of the water, the anchor may not even have much effect, but even if it does it's not always identified).
For example, here's a report from a US based ship accidentally dragging anchor for a couple days: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...