When a corporation is executed for causing the deaths of real people, then we might talk about corporate personhood.

Or where one is arrested and held in a jail prior to a trial.

when the corporation is used as a person, it is only done in reference to it's own behalf separated from non-controlling owners in compliance with its fiduciary responsibility. If it wasn't, any contract made would have the same effect as you making a contract with your lawnmower in that if it doesn't start, you cannot take legal action to make it start. Therefore, it has to be considered it's own person for a set of interactions normally present in commerce.

A corporation is not capable of good and evil, capable of saving a life, or taking a life. It is however capable of being obligated to contracts, following laws, rules, and regulation, and being held accountable vicariously when it fails to do so. A corporation is a tool that separates owners and investors/owners from actions they do not participate in which is essential for investing.

It cannot be a person, not now, not ever

The law has, always did, and always will allow it to be a person. You arguing it isn't just means you are either confused or willfully ignoring that.

An estimated one in four user applications sent from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' HealthCare.gov to insurance providers have errors introduced by the website,

Introduced by the website seems to imply they are because of the website. Both the article and summery say that.

Now from what I have been told, you don't fill out specific forms. You enter specific information into the website and it fills the forms out for you based on the plans you pick. It is supposed to stop you from filling forms out incorrectly or getting confused on wording and so on. It also allows you to do direct comparisons without having to fill 20 forms out for 10 different providers offering 2 plans each.

It's my understanding that this is happening with no user error at all. It's as if they load all the information into a database then when you select a plan, it retrieves the information and places what it thinks it needs on the forms it thinks it needs and that is where the errors are occurring. So it would actually be the website's problem as it attempts to collect the information and place it into the application forms as needed and failing there.

The literature mentions 1% per day, so 80 days and you'll be into reserve charge. So 2 months is likely the practical maximum. When I stored a car in an uncontrolled environment in Alaskan winters (storing the summer car), I'd start it once a month. Sometimes it wouldn't start so well (temperature was hard on batteries). Other times, it started easily. I'd let it idle for at least an hour before turning it off for another month. I'd also roll it forward a quarter turn of the tires (at least the first winters, before I bought a "storage set" of wheels for it with crap tires I didn't mind the flat spots in).

If you are parking a Telsa on the street for a week at a time, where are you charging it before you park it there? Best is to charge it up the day before you want to use it again, or more often if you exceed the drain time. Also, others have noted that the main battery pack will self-disconnect if you remove/disconnect the 12V battery. So if you are storing it longer term, disconnect the 12V battery, and you'll be better off. I have no idea how long it will/should last if you do that.

Given the difficulty of charging if you only have on street parking, I expect most Tesla owners would reserved parking with access to a charger in that location. In that case, charge it up before storage, and, once a month, charge it up to full. OR just leave it trickle indefinitely.

I've seen similar problems with people that used under-sized alternators with engine swaps. You can play with pulley sizes to improve performance (smaller fly-wheel on the alternator will spin it faster, making more electricity). He spent a lot of time with the dealer before he got an official answer that the performance was "expected".

While it is true that corporations act in their own interests, they simply cannot act without someone actually acting. Even if it is run by computers, someone has to direct them to respond in specific ways. The entire idea of a corporation being a person is that it needs to be an entity separate from the owners who take no control in it's operations.

This is why referring to a corporation as an entity is proper in some respects but when it violates a law, it is actually those inside it that violate the law. No corporation can exist if it's policy is to violate the law or to cause a person's death (unless you are some kind of mercenary or something). If a corporation does something and people die, it is people inside the corporation that did something and people died. Sometimes nothing happens and a defect causes the death (like a weld in a tank corroding away due to some unseen and unknown impurities in the welding rod and the resulting rupture releases poison into the air) and that would be a lot like a tree falling and killing people. You certainly can't put nature in jail nor could we sue God and get payment. There are remedies if the home owner knew the tree was about to fall and didn't take steps but that is more of an example of someone choosing to act or not act in a certain way.

The FDA endorses false and misleading information all the time. For instance, look at their line on smoking in which they claim or support others making claims about the number of people with lung cancer who smoked showing you have a high risk of getting it if you do. They almost say it is a certainty that if you smoke or even be around people who smoke, you will get cancer and die. But the facts are that fewer then 10% of life long smokers will get lung cancer and to that, cancer deaths from smoking only make up 30% of all deaths from cancer (which is why it probably isn't outright banned). But when you look solely at lung cancer deaths, 87% smoked which gets turned into the you will get cancer and die claim.

Or both. The vampire drain is expected. The dealer refused to "fix" the car, so the drain was declared normal. The charging system would also be under-rated for the level of vampirism of the system. Fixing either one would fix the problem. But the dealer said it was "expected operation" and he needed to buy a charger or drive it more. He bought a charger. No problems since.

What risks did I misinterpret? Please state them for me. I mentioned that there are edge cases, as you failed to mention them, then dismiss them when brought up. Why?

Do you really equate slaves and beatings to being employed and producing something in that employment for compensation?

I have a hard time thinking you are serious. But if you are, you definitely should not be listened to.

Corporate creates something- the CEO files the patent or copyright or leases it from the real person exclusively with all rights until the end of the person's term.

You see, nothing different would come from having two separate spans. Keep them relatively equal and somewhat moderate in term length and things should get a lot better.

You seem to think a corporation is a sentient being or something. The fact of the matter is that a corporation cannot and will not act on anything unless someone at the wheel makes it do so. This person and these people are the ones who bear most of the responsibilities, criminal and civil liabilities, and so on. And as such, the liabilities are only to the point that it can be proven they acted wrongly or in some way that exposed their liabilities. The corporation is also liable vicariously to some extend and in some situations, statutorily in others.

A corporation is nothing but a took to protect you from liabilities for the actions of others. Those others and their actions are still completely answerable just as you might be- especially if it is a board member or anything other management or officer in the company. If you have proof they are behind something, then they can be held to answer for it.

But they didn't imprison the German Americans or the Italian Americans. So maybe, just maybe, there was something about the Japanese Americans and Japanese born legal residents that the armed forces saw differently. Just maybe there was something different about the US back then. "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" comes to mind but I'm not sure how loudly it gets said when it is talking about FDR.

And that is not to mention that Japanese Americans were in the armed forces during the same time period too.

"most" is an interesting choice. I've never found any that did. My Nissan and Mazdas failed down. More than one model, more than 20 years separation. Eventually, flip headlights were (essentially) made illegal, so we don't have to worry about it anymore.

Can you name a single one that failed open, if the opening mechanism failed while closed?