I don't think I'm qualified to provide an answer - trying to detail how execs should not be able to profit from fail-cases like this is a mine-field of edge cases, I expect.
I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.
The tradeoff suggested above (not saying that it's the right way around or correct) is:
* If you provide ChatGPT then 5 people who would have died will live and 1 person who would have lived will die. ("go to the doctor" vs "don't tell anyone that you're suicidal")
* If you don't provide ChatGPT then 1 person who would have died will live and 5 people who would have lived will die.
Like many things, it's a tradeoff and the tradeoffs might not be obvious up front.
Sonos were originally great, when they were a platform to injest your music and stream to your various rooms.
That was years ago, and now they want to own the whole thing, from music to speakers, and are willing to brick old devices to force you onto more isolating versions of their app.
I'm very glad I never switched to them (was close when Logitech killed squeezebox), and would not recommend them to anyone for any reason.
Something needs to be done; Google's mission is at odds to good browser development, and having an effective monopoly with the world using a single browser is not good for users even without the advertising conflict of interest.
it's a bit more involved than that, IIRC (been a while) - the civilisations involved typically migrate around the galaxy, entierly abandoning entire arms of the milky way and moving to another; agreements with other non-compatible civilisations mean that those that remain exist in an extremely hostile environment (the wars between the oxygen and hydrogen breathers, in particular, were notable until they managed to come to this arrangement).
There are also significant numbers of extremely agressive and militaristic civilisations, mostly held back by the laws and customs of setting, who would gleefully seek out and destroy anyone not following along.
Pedestrians have quite broad right of way in the UK - you can't step into moving traffic and expect them to slam on the brakes, but you will see people crossing anywhere and everywhere at any time:
I've posted in the sibling thread r.e. the density (which I believe you have underestimated by several orders of magnitude), however a stroll around london will show you that, excepting arterial roads, cars always have to deal with pedestrians crossing at any time and place, including between you and the car ahead if you come to a stop, or if there's more than a couple meters between you and the next car. Even busy arterial roads will have to deal with people walking across them if there are large gaps or the traffic is slow or stalled.
I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.