The Colorado laws regarding meal breaks govern the activities of the employer, not the employee. The employer is entirely free to discipline an employee who has worked more time than was authorized under the company's normal disciplinary policies, but the employee must still be paid for all time that they worked.

"The employer is required to provide" is not actually the same thing as "the employee is required to take". An employer cannot deduct time for a lunch break that was not taken. The employer can, however, discipline an employee for failing to take a lunch break when they were supposed to, and can refuse to honor the time worked during the expected lunch break if this is stipulated in the employment contract. In absence of any such contract, the employee is still required to be paid for all time worked.

Employers are certainly free to require that employees take a lunch break to prevent the "he said-she said" scenario, but employees are not actually directly required to take such breaks by law. You may want to reread the California statutes again.

That line is Trochaic tetrameter, not iambic pentameter.

The employer cannot deduct a lunch break if the employee did not take one. If the employer mandates that lunch breaks be taken, or will not necessarily approve of all hours worked if no lunch break is taken, then this sort of thing must explicitly be described in the employment contract that the employee signs when they first start working for that employer. In some jurisdictions, it is required by law that employers offer breaks to employees who work more than a certain number of otherwise consecutive hours, but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.

Only *IF* the person behind was following too closely for their speed in the first place. Generally speaking, rear-end collisions are open-and-shut with insurance companies... and the person behind is ordinarily considered 100% at fault for the accident (the exceptions to this typically require separate and unbiased testimony from quite a few witnesses, or what would work even better is an actual video recording of the incident to show the person in front was at fault), and insurance will fully cover all of the expenses applicable for both vehicle damage restoration and any injury claims.

Of course... and pilots should never trust their electronic guidance to get them where they need to go... they should only ever use visual confirmation near the ground and dead reckoning while at altitude.

What's wrong with hitting the brakes in an unexpected emergency to assess the actual danger, exactly? If the person behind collides with them, they were following too closely for the speed the person behind was going in the first place. That's not the fault of the person who slowed down or stopped their car.

And you realize that the arctic and antarctic circles do not account individually account for a very large percentage of the earth's surface that continues to receive sunlight while they are in darkness, right? The planet, as a whole, still receives heat from the sun.

Thank you... that's exactly the sort of statistics I was wondering about. So it's survivable, but probably regularly quite chilly. Basically, you'd get short period of winter like weather at least once every orbit, regardless of the actual season based on its orientation to the sun.

In both of those situations, only *part* of the planet is in darkness for that period... what if the entire planet was?

"...customers will have the ability to buy as much data as they want"

Because taken at face value, that comment means that they should be offering customers as much money as they need to get all of the data that their customers want. After all, if a customer don't have enough money to pay for it, then they don't really have the ability to buy it, do they?

I imagined the eclipse lasting several days each revolution... it would be orbiting a gas-giant, which is substantially larger than the moon itself, and close enough to the gas giant that it may possibly even tidally locked to it.

I can easily envisiion a situation where an entire moon is plunged into shadow as it orbits a gas giant. This would, I presume, cause temperatures to fall for the duration of the eclipse, and if it lasted too long, I can imagine that such a regular occurrence would likely make the moon inhospitable to life as we know it, even if it is the right distance from the sun to support liquid water, and even if it had an appropriate gravitational pull and atmosphere.

There's nothing wrong with working.... as long as you are paying all the appropriate amounts of income tax.