... and violating family-planning rules
So, in effect, you're f*cked twice.
Nuclear power stations can't get insurance, the liability is far too great
That should say enough. Risk = chance * impact * "repairability". Sure, the chance of a nuclear accident is low, but the impact is so huge that the risk is way too high.
Why isn't she in jail?
Because you do not seem to live in Bugarup:
Government officials in Bugarup are elected by the people and then put into prison to save time.
If only this could be done in the USA! The coming election is the best time ever.
... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions
So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.
Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.
the Allo team
That is not for the dev team to decide. Let the user decide it. But off course, this is Google. There Is No Such Thing As Privacy.
I think it would get very quiet here...
And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?
Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from the bread that currency is worth something, and seen from the futures, it is worth nothing. Both are incompatible and just plain wrong and the situation is just waiting for a crisis to happen.
All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus.
No. The prerequisite for changes is a need for it. If you have really small communities, people learn to do everything themselves and hardly trade. Once the communities get larger, they see that some people are good at something and start dividing the work. Only in unmanageable societies you have the need for a common exchange thingy (=money). But if the money is not made by the society itself (or its representation), this opens up a big can of worms.
wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal
Depends on the need and whether you like to do the job. Machines are by far better at taking a walk than I am. And if I use public transport to go to work, it saves me energy and I even don't have to pay attention to the road. But I rather use my bicycle. It pays off in a lot more things than just money.
Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal