It's easier to build trust for such a safety-critical service when you're more open about how it works an performs. For the complete opposite approach, see Tesla.

Given the announcement from a few days ago of google trying to get external investment, this is their follow up, showing what that investment is good for. Also, it’s pretty light on details that are of much use to competitors. “We made an accurate simulation system to test our system in before deployment” would be pretty mundane if you were talking about any other field of engineering.

Maybe to distract from the story that they use remote drivers after one of their cars hit a kid? [1]

[1] https://people.com/waymo-exec-reveals-company-uses-operators...

edit: fixed kill -> hit

The child did not die, and suffered only minor injuries: https://abc7.com/post/california-teamsters-call-suspension-w...

Under the same circumstances (kid suddenly emerging between two parked cars and running out onto the street), it could be debated that the outcome could have been worse if a human were driving.

It’s awful a child was hit, but they only suffered minor injuries [1]. Nowhere in your linked article does it say they were killed.

[1] https://people.com/waymo-car-hits-child-walking-to-school-du...

I don't know about the remote driver conspiracy, but waymo slowing down and that kid surviving a crash after jumping on the road from behind a tall vehicle was the best PR waymo could have asked for.