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.
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”
People who keep their kids inside but let their pets play in traffic are psychopaths.
I know what I said.
Who told you that cat was someone’s pet?
The linked article, like the person claimed.
Picture of cat shows a collar, tag, and bell. It’s a pet.
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.
My quote is from the linked article.
Doubling down and re-stating your claims again as fact won’t make reality change.
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 linked article…
Did you ask some AI to summarise the article? Because there’s no mention of it being a pet cat.
Did you read it? Or did you just ctrl+f “pet”? Because it specifically mentions the cat having an owner.
Nowhere in the article does it mention the cat having an owner, besides the statement released by Waymo.
So it doesn’t besides the point where it does.
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.
There are no pets mentioned in the linked article.
“We send our deepest sympathies to the cat’s owner”
Did you even read it?
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.
Yes I read that. That’s the boilerplate statement from the company that is obviously factually incorrect.
Work on your comprehension skills, it will help you in life.