No. I'm saying your views are inconsistent.

You would feel obligated to defend yourself against being punched. You wouldn't feel obligated to defend yourself against being rear ended.

In both examples you'd be acting to prevent injury to yourself in response to somebody else's fault, so what criteria do you use?

I don't really care if it does. I just want it to taste good. Lots of things that aren't bacon taste good.

Why would you be obliged to defend yourself? It's not your fault that they're punching you.

statistically speaking the best way to do that is to take the bus

Yes, but that would be a little extreme. Obviously we balance risk and utility. Is this really the sort of thing that needs to be spelled out? I'm not sure I see the point of this pedantry.

you can also take steps to...

Yes. You should do all these things. So should self driving cars.

It's not a legal doctrine. Simply a matter of common sense.

If someone were to punch you, would you move out of the way, or stay there, on the basis that it's their responsibility not to punch you?

If I can do something to prevent someone rear ending me then I will do so. It's not always possible but if it is, it's in my interests. I don't want a damaged car, I don't want whiplash, and I don't want to interrupt my journey with an exchange of insurance details.

Whether it's their fault or my fault doesn't lessen the impact.

If a victim can avoid being a victim then there's an obligation to do so. Whether that's "victim blaming" or not is a pretty pointless argument. Anything to do with blame is.

If someone leaps out in front of me then I slam on the brakes. It's their fault for leaping out in front of me but that doesn't lessen my responsibility to try to prevent harm. What difference will it make who's to "blame"? If someone is too close behind me I slow down and if possible, let the idiot go past. Once again, if there's an accident it's not my fault but it's in my interest to prevent the accident.

Why should she answer these? She isn't the voice of anti-GG. Unless she made those specific comments then she should be brought to task for them but I'm under the impression she didn't. (And similarly I don't think all GG supporters are responsible for the idiots in their group, even though there are a lot of them)

That is a pretty reasonable cost for high speed rail transit between two cities. The French LGV Est line cost about â4 billion ($4.41 billion), which is a similar price for a similar distance. I could have picked UK's HS2, which is several times the price.

I was assuming major business areas. So Sydney certainly, but that's more than 4000 nautical miles away from Beijing or Tokyo. Hadn't considered a refueling stop though. Even with a 2 hour turnaround, there's still a hefty time saving.

That is definitely a good question.

Presumably there are always going to be people for whom time really is so valuable that you can charge a huge amount, but how many of them are there on routes this could serve? Seems to be 4000nmi which I think limits it to transatlantic flights, but there might be some destinations from Singapore.

Don't see any reason to believe that the train operator was even aware of this. The person who initially complained was a PCSO.

Ahem Let's spend thousands of pounds over 6 pence worth of electricity

London Overground is suburban rail, not a long distance service. You will get recharge points on the trains between cities (at least on some of them)

I suspect the changes will just strengthen the existing provisions for demanding encryption keys.

It's unlikely that this will work particularly effectively, but to me this seems the most likely plan from the government, in that the law itself could be passed without breaking the internet.