Waymo says San Francisco service has resumed after one-hour pause 31%

By Anthony Ha57%

7/18/2026, 12:30:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Hasty Generalization, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 28.6% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 515 faulty-reasoning hits from 238 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.6% and a BS Rank of 31% (15,114 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

Waymo says robotaxi service has resumed after it made “temporary adjustments” in San Francisco amidst a power outage that appears to have affected around 7,000 PG&E customers in the city. 
According to a screenshot posted on social media, Waymo told SF customers that service was “temporarily paused” and that “freeway routes are unavailable.” 
When TechCrunch reached out to the Alphabet-owned company for comment, a spokesperson said in a statement, “We are making temporary adjustments to our service while we monitor local conditions. 
We know riders depend on us, and we will return to normal operations as soon as possible.” 
Following the initial publication of this article, a Waymo spokesperson added that the company “decided to pause service for approx. one hour to assess the scale of the power outage affecting a large portion of San Francisco and coordinate with local officials.” 
Power outages have affected Waymo service in the past, for example when a number of Waymo vehicles stalled on city streets during a blackout in December, and when a similar incident paralyzed traffic during a Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on the Fourth of July. 
As a result, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has called for tougher state regulations to “adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not.” 
This post has been updated with additional comment from Waymo reflecting that service has resumed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 4.3%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Anthony Ha: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias12.6%This article: 28.6%Anthony Ha: 4.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic28.6%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.1%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 17.6%Anthony Ha: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 2.4%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Anthony Ha: 4.6%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect23.9%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Anthony Ha: 3.1%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 2.0%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Anthony Ha: 7.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 2.4%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Anthony Ha: 2.2%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 4.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.2%Anthony Ha: 3.3%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority12.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 3.3%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.5%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.9%Anthony Ha: 12.4%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization18.9%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%Anthony Ha: 3.4%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.3%Anthony Ha: 3.6%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%Anthony Ha: 5.0%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.7%Anthony Ha: 1.4%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.2%Anthony Ha: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote12.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.6%Anthony Ha: 5.7%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice17.6%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.6%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.7%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

238 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers58%attributed speech100writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Waymo • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWaymo • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTechCrunch • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWaymo • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Lurie • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daniel Lurie

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words20% of attributed speech100% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.