Your cat

Whose cat was it again? Whose fault is it?

Whose responsibility would it be to keep the cat inside?

Nowhere in that article does it say anything about the cat being a pet, nor does it state that the cat has an owner. It references an outside statement from Waymo where they, like you, appear to assume the cat has an owner without anything to indicate that, but nobody who spoke to The Guardian for that article said a single thing about the cat being a pet or having an owner.

The cat was very obviously a local stray. Doubling down and insisting there’s an owner without any proof of an owner existing in that article will not make reality change. Unless you can find in that article where it says the cat was a pet, or identifies an owner, you’re just making things up.

The article is relaying information from an authoritative group of people who are informing the article, (those who know the cat and are being interviewed for the purpose of this article) and Waymo (Who is unfamiliar with the cat besides the point that they’ve confirmed they ran it over, and did not speak to the Guardian for this article).

There is no mention of an owner from that authoritative group of people.

The letter sent out by Waymo is not an authoritative source of information for this cat, nor is it asserting that the cat does in fact have an owner. It’s just an uninformed assumption by a third party with no first hand knowledge of this cat in order to cover a base because it’s boilerplate. An owner is mentioned in it for the same purpose as the phrase “To whom it may concern”

You have got to work on your media literacy.

Nowhere in the article does it mention the cat having an owner, besides the statement released by Waymo.

The linked Article doesn’t say anything about any pets. The quote you used is from Waymo, who didn’t know anything about the cat besides the fact that their robot car ran it over.

The tag in the picture is a rabies tag, not an ownership tag. The collar is to hold the rabies tag, and the bell is attached to the collar.

The article has quotes from several community members grieving the loss of the cat, yet not from any supposed owner and doesn’t even mention any owner. The cat is very obviously a local stray.

Yes I read it, there is no owner mentioned in that article, and it was very obviously a stray cat.

Your quote is just an example of the fact that Waymo has a canned, boilerplate template ready to go for when they run over an animal.

There are no pets mentioned in the linked article.

Who told you that cat was someone’s pet?

I’m at 87%health. I get below 30% and have to charge it back to full once or twice throughout the day

My phone only lasts a handful of hours on 26. 15 pro

Little Nightmares 1 & 2. Cosmic horror very well executed. No real lore is ever given to you besides what you are shown through your travels and what little environmental storytelling exists.

Everything is vaguely familiar but off. Distorted, but in a way that you’re never quite sure whether everything in the world is supposed to be like that, or if something happened to make it that way. In fact, it’s not even officially cosmic horror. There is no Cthulhu-esque big bad revealed to be behind it all. The visuals of the games could even just be interpreted as on -the-nose allegory and metaphor, with a fairytale like quality, if not for the subtle hints at a prior normality in the background.

I don’t find your earlier quote on that page anywhere.

Here’s a screenshot

My claim is not that they ever said that explicitly, but that their marketing claimed ‘your privacy came first’ without any similar-size mention how it would be limited by Swiss law.

Their marketing around privacy as it exists right now is extremely up front and detailed about the fact that it’s based on Swiss law. If you’re going to claim that at some point in time it didn’t, you’re going to have to show some kind of proof of that. I don’t recall any time in the last few years that they weren’t touting Swiss law as the very basis for their privacy claims.

Yeah it’s getting really annoying at this point.

Here you go: https://proton.me/mail

Just scroll down. Each selling point is marked with title case text, followed by their reasoning.

Under the first one that mentions privacy ( Highest standards of privacy) it says:

Proton is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland, meaning your data is protected by some of the world’s strictest privacy laws.

The entirety of their reasoning behind their claim of “Highest standards of privacy”, right on their main landing page is based on the limitations of Swiss Law and literally nothing else. It even contains a link to a blog post where they go into detail on how Swiss Law affects what they can and can’t do lol.

Can you find me a way back machine link to their website where they told you that they aren’t subject to or otherwise do not comply with Swiss law?

they sold themselves as “private”, not "private up to the extent of Swiss law

No, they sold themselves as “private up to the extent of Swiss law”.

No. The impression their marketing gave was that they followed Swiss law.

Also pay attention to what the service says and what it doesn’t. We get into this spot regularly because of things people assumed about Protonmail without being told.

On the contrary, lots of us write our own scripts and programs. And when considering how to self host that software, serverless is a perfectly valid choice.

Just because many self hosters are hobbyists who are only capable of using things off the shelf doesn’t make self hosting infrastructure outside the scope of… selfhosting lol