I would think it is reasonable enough to require that some negative thing happens to someone's health to call it a health impact. That's not moving the goalposts, that's going by the definitions of the words.

They are advantageous as long as most of the content producers are here. If not, they become a disadvantage.

That's the point where the U.S. throws it's weight around and gets others to agree to new terms.

So where's that health impact you claimed? Who got sick?

Even as a sardine is just a bird with an altitude problem.

There's trust, and then there's TRUST. Doing something like this automatically is like doing automatic updates ... not a good idea.

This is only one aspect of aging. Here is a list of several others. All of them probably need to be addressed to reverse aging (and probably other things we don't know about).

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Democratic law enforcement does not hinder the overall quality of law enforcement. Just look at the US, where over the last 30 years, all liberal protections of law have been more or less whittled away to optional, has done little to keep criminals off the streets. Guilty until proven innocent prevents false convictions, which actually helps keeping dangerous people off the streets, because a false conviction closes the case and lets a guilty man walk free(in addition to incarcerating an innocent one).

Even if it did work like this, its a small price to pay to keep institutionalized abusive behavior from happening, if the price is only a handful of petty crimes. Or think about it this way. The police shoot and kill more people every year that all spree shooters did between 1985 and 2015. Most of the really bad abuse behavior done in the USA is done by policians, cops, corporations and their representatives, and other authority figures.

I think the wierd way you confuse "unlimited police powers", with "unlimited police abilities", as if people complaining about police abuse don't want the police to do their legtimate jobs. So your point is a strawman.

1. Jurisdiction. You're suing an American company in America for what happened in another country. If this law suit was in India, against Uber's Indian subsidiary I'd be more sympathetic
2. India has problems with rape, that at least what I get from reading American news, is even worse than American rape culture. It would be entirely out of line for an American company to try and effect change in India. India has to address rape culture on its own.
3. What exactly do you want them to do. Background checks against rapists are fairly sketchy because rape is undereported and convictions hard. i.e. most rapists don't get convicted.

India has a notable rape problem as a whole(so does the US to a degree), and there is no unilateral action that you can demand of Uber that will fix that.

Maybe it will happen, but by then everyone reading this today will be 61+.

Adoption is going to be slow. The current perl is like XP with one important difference - it's still being distributed.

The average person doesn't respond to appeals to logic. Otherwise we'd be walking, bicycling, and taking public transit instead, just from an economic point of view. And people would have a lot less garbage to haul out on garbage day because they'd recycle. And we'd be admitting that we went over the tipping point in the 70s. And nobody should have more than 1 or 2 children. And many more would be telecommuting. And the Tea Party wouldn't exist. And Sarah Palin wouldn't be on anyone's radar.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that alternate reality.

Except that it is much easier for a corporation to make profits disappear overseas on paper than it is for an individual. I cannot open a "Me Inc." in Ireland and pay Me 90% of my income as a licensing fee on me, the trademark and then deduct it from my taxes here.