A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
Edit: I never learn how to not try to be helpful to hostile commenters. I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
I tried to help someone who prefaced their confusion with an assertion that they were unwilling to read the linked material. This one’s on me, I guess.
Came here to say this. I will never be compelled to install an app on my phone by an eatery the first time I go there. That is severely hostile design. Don’t willingly inconvenience yourself just to freely provide them your tracking info to sell.
There is no shame in your ownership of the vehicle based on your intentions; I would humbly assert that anger is a more appropriate reaction to the current leadership of the company that made it. If strangers judge you, that’s on them.
If I had had the means to purchase one 10+ years ago, I would have. Most people who claim they wouldn’t are not being honest with themselves or disapproved of the virtue signaling associated with them at the time.
Temporary plates could be someone moving out of state. Are you sure it was the latest model?
That’s an understandable point of confusion and an excellent case to avoid capitalization of that term in casual writing. I’ll leave it as is for context, but I’ll probably drop the capital moving forward.
I wonder why it became such a common name for newspapers.
Someone needs to tell Downtown Doug Brown about dark and muted background colors to alleviate eye strain. The white is like staring into the Sun.
Edit: Whhoooaaa, definitely poked the bear on this one. This comment was intended to both make a tongue-in-cheek point and be funny. Didn’t mean to ruffle so many feathers.
I was curious why someone downvoted you, so I took a look at the video.
That is absolutely 100% CGI and I’m not sure why anyone is doubting that. I’m on mobile and I can still see it.
Take my upvote.
“Nothing there said the spokesperson is not a source”
They said in their statements that they wouldn’t identify a corporate spokesperson as a “source familiar”. That language — corporate spokesperson — is intended to avoid describing the representative as an actual “source” in the sense of identifying them as a leak.