[nt]

It becomes pitch black. He is liable to eat himself.

*YOU* might not... but your great-great or great-great-great grandchildren might... I am presuming that you'd be living on a generational spaceship where the gravity can be slowly modified so that by the time they arrive, they would be fully acclimated to the higher gravity.

As a larger planet, however, since force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, the surface gravity of a world otherwise equivalent in density to another ends up rises linearly with the diameter of the planet. If it is of similar composition to earth, then 5.4 earth masses would make it cbrt(5.4) times the size of earth, or roughly 1.75g at the planet's surface. Assuming that the atmospheric density is comparable to earth's (possible, even with greater gravity if the atmosphere itself is proportionally thinner), then this is theoretically survivable by human beings for short periods, or even prolonged ones if they were able to acclimate to the increased gravitation pull gradually, over a span of several years, giving time for skeletal tissue to build up and strengthen the body's structure to survive the increased tension.

I'm pretty sure that regardless of what the court or this judge feels, the government will do whatever the heck it wants. And in the end, how would anyone force the US government to comply with the court order?

That's entirely true... my point is that there is no actual legislation that requires the employee to take a break... and that the employee must still be paid for all time worked unless there was an explicit agreement to the contrary in the employment contract which would have been signed by the employee when they started working for that employer. Even then, certain rights to being fully paid for time worked cannot be legally forfeited, regardless of what kinds of agreements were made.

But certainly, yes... an employer is at liberty to discipline an employee who works unauthorized hours, in whatever fashion is commensurate with that company's disciplinary policies. Even if the hours were not authorized, barring any employment contract which explicitly indicates otherwise, as I mentioned above, the employee is still legally required to be paid for the time they worked, and cannot legally deduct time for a lunch break from the employee's pay if it was not actually taken.

Of course, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try and avoid an accident with a car behind me, since the actualy responsibility for that goes to the driver that is behind me. If I feel I need to stop or slow down to assess an unexpected situation, I will do so, because I have a responsibility to not cause an accident ahead of me with my own vehicle.

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.