Which is why, in many cases, there should be liability assigned. If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame, and the company that made it should be liable for the wrongful death suit, and probably for criminal charges as well. Citizens United already determined that corporations are people…now we just need to put a corporation in prison for their crimes.

The restrictions on nuclear fuel recycling might be lifted soon, so that argument may very well become moot as well.

There is talk about lifting the restrictions on fuel recycling, so that problem (which isn’t as big an issue as folks make it out to be) has the potential to be solved.

We have 3 cats, and unintentionally, they are all long haired cats. They were the ones that picked us, and we weren’t about to tell them they were wrong and adopt a different cat because of their hair length.

(To be fair, I did manage to run Half Life: Alyx and Beat Saber on a 1060)

That’s why it’s a disagreement. I’m not necessarily saying their opinions are factually incorrect, just that they are devoid of empathy, morally reprehensible, and antithetical to the teachings of the religious figure that they are statistically likely to claim to be faithful to. A lack of empathy should not be rewarded.

Typically, the things I disagree with are the things like bad faith arguments, lies, rudeness, or bigoted ideals that purport that not all humans deserve equal rights, etc.

Usually, when I disagree with something, it is because it is incorrect, lying, or particularly mean-spirited. I disagree with people that do not think that every human deserves the same rights. I disagree with people that push for ideologies that would strip other humans of their rights, or that would inflict needless suffering. I don’t downvote people when I disagree with what media they think is good or something. I downvote those that express ideas that are antithetical to what I see as basic human decency or that are factually incorrect.

Personally, I use downvotes to say “I disagree with this and/or it is a stupid/bad/bigoted/etc take, but I do not wish to spend the time and effort to respond and get dragged into a text-based mudfight with someone who is unlikely to speak to me politely, no matter how polite I try to be in my rebuttal.”

I like having a way to say “no, bad, stop that” without having to spend time trying to explain things or engage with someone who I think is beyond convincing anyways.

“Tachycardia” is a sign. “Palpitations” or “heart racing” are symptoms. Signs are the objective things that can be measured and recorded as hard data. Symptoms are what the patient reports feeling that are not measurable. In taking a history and physical, the symptoms tell the physician what signs to look for.

In this case, it’s the medical ethics standards that have been discussed, litigated, and debated to hell and back before landing on the accepted standard. So it’s the physicians, lawyers, ethics experts, legislators, and judicial system that agreed on what is best.

Medical professional giving my two cents here: physicians and healthcare providers are allowed, and in some cases even required, to disregard the expressed, voiced, or even written wishes of the parent if the parent’s wishes would endanger the child’s life. The classic example is with Jehovah’s Witnesses: if a child of a Jehovah’s Witness is getting surgery or suffered an injury with significant blood loss, the child will be given life-saving blood transfusions irrespective of the parents’ religious beliefs or wishes.

This is not a breach of informed consent taken lightly, but physicians and other medical professionals will ignore what the parents did or did not consent to if it means that the child or vulnerable adult would die or suffer grievous harm otherwise.

The PE bullshit is why I want to be a physician in the public, county ER that actually employs its physicians directly. Also, the PE companies don’t qualify for PSLF, and they don’t pay enough to make up that difference against non-profit hospitals.

The driverless robo-taxis are also a concern. When one of them killed someone in San Francisco there was not a clear responsible entity to charge with the crime.

The current court cases show that the manufacturers are trying to fob off responsibility onto the owners of the vehicles by way of TOS agreements with lots of fine print and Tesla in particular is getting slammed for false advertising about the capabilities of their self-driving features while they simultaneously try to force all legal liability onto the drivers that believed their advertising.

The lack of accountability means that there is nothing and no one to take responsibility when the robot/computer inevitably kills someone. A human can be faced with legal ramifications for their actions, the companies that make these computers have shown thus far that they are exempt from such consequences.

The popular vote? Hillary. The egregiously outdated and unfair electoral college vote? The bloated, corrupt rapist that is also a flailing and failing oligarch.

Then you don’t have a very good understanding of what domestic abuse situations are actually like. I hope that you can expand your understanding through empathetic learning and that you don’t have to learn via personal or close vicarious experience.

OP has said elsewhere in the thread that they knew this couple at the time and she did not have a meaningful say in the situation. She was threatened with divorce if she had gotten the vaccine. For a lot of women, their economic situations are such that a sudden divorce would likely lead to poverty and homelessness as well as loss of meaningful support for any of their children.

Domestic abuse isn’t just physical violence, it can also include manipulation, coercion, and other forms of control.