The article tells a story of a very clever person repeatedly disregarding other drivers' safety and legal obligations who apparently ripped off his employees and his main employer with side projects long before the Uber case, and whose "religion" sounds like either further evidence of apparent self-important fanatical weirdness or (as other users have pointed out) a tax dodge.

Either you've skimmed it, or you have a very unusual concept of what "redeems" someone...

Perhaps I missed something but I didn't see the redemption in it. It seemed like two different articles patched together, one about the religion, the other about the lawsuit, trying desperately to make a compelling article. It just feels lacking in totality..

To me the sole purpose was to tell the story. It doesn't redeem or condemn Levandowski. It just says 'Check this guy out. He exists!'

The original headline is: "God is a Bot and Anthony Levandowski is His Messenger". IT ends with an anonymous former colleague saying, "If he could just play it straight, he could be the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. But he just doesn’t know when to stop cutting corners."

That's not a description that will be particularly redeeming to a general audience, especially for readers who are cynical of tech's reach, and things like Zuckerberg becoming more political.

>Levandowski sold 510 Systems and Anthony’s Robots to Google – for $20 million, the exact cutoff before the wealth would be shared. Rank and file engineers did not see a penny, and some were even let go before the acquisition was completed.

For me, that is the opposite of "redeeming".

Really? You find trying to start a new cult redeeming?

Not even an interesting one - just yet another rehash of 90s Extropian Cyborg-Christianity rapture of the nerds stuff.

By the time you get to the bottom, it's pretty damning. Hard to imagine him finding investors, but who knows?