I think there's a big difference between "activating" a muscle and "getting utility" out of it. Sure, maybe it activates sometimes, but what does it do? Well... nothing. It's a vestigial structure.
This video from Husqvarna 2 years ago doesn't sound like it's a motor noise. Sounds more like an onboard beeper that can emit single tones. This, in my opinion, is rather disappointing.
It's possible that's some kind of motor noise, but it doesn't sound like it to me.
EDIT: I realize when I say "motor noise" there's some ambiguity. I know there isn't a gas powered engine in this little mower. Revving an engine is exactly what I expected, and this isn't that. When I reference motor noise here, I just mean sound could be produced by a servo or similar, but I don't think that's what's happening.
Maybe I'm being incredibly naive, but it seems like this would be trivial. Can you just start with the output hash and then essentially run the algorithms backwards? Obviously the resulting "input" would be random-ish garbage, but it seems like if all you care about is the output, you can pretty much just "pick" any data for the last step that produces the output. Then do likewise for the step prior, and so on.
It's not security through obscurity. In fact, it's the very opposite. You can see the process exactly. The reason this is secure is because the process itself doesn't work backwards. You can create a hash using this algorithm, but you'll never reverse that hash back into the original text.
In my experience, there's typically more than one "smoking gun". The problem isn't finding one, it's eliminating all of the "smoking guns" that aren't actually related to the outage.
If I worked at an organization with many teams deploying updates multiple times per day and several same day events seemed related, I would probably also put less weight on a gradual, months-long deployment that had completed a day prior.
I asked my thinkingrock if it could think and it said yes. Really though, "thinking" is very hard to define. Do animals think? Do insects think? Do bacteria think? I'm sure somewhere we could find an example of a "living" thing that people consider to have thinking capability whose abilities are substantially more primitive than a CPU. So... why not say a CPU can think?