>The number of Uber's violations could have been communicated previously, or could have been implicit in the context of the conversation (at least 1 violation, causing the investigation) - either of these 3 explanations seems equally likely.

The implicit one doesn't make sence, if an event caused the investigation surely how well Uber did would be the primary focus. Which leaves he knew already, meaning they already had a meeting or something to discuss the results and they were significant enough that he wanted a comparison.

>Uber's management and engineers may be irresponsible, but I don't think they're that evil, and I would hope no self-respecting engineer or human being would go along with that. "Oh, that's funny, let's try that again" works for software development, it's emphatically not how real world testing involving danger to life and limb works.

This was their illegal self driving car test on the streets of San Fransisco. They were unwilling to follow the legal safety rules, and unwilling to provide the deposit in the event they did cause someone serious harm. That they left on the road while they tested if the light was to blame.