This is what's called sophistry. The current system is the second least democratic option possible. There are countless ways to make it better and only one way to make it worse. So why, if you're truly asking in good faith, fixate on the one way to make it worse as the only possible change?
I forget the exact name of it, but there's a game theory problem adjacent to but not exactly the Prisoner's Dilemma. Everyone votes yes or no, and if yes wins, everyone loses $20, but everyone who voted no loses $200. If no wins, nothing happens.
The definition of emergency is absurdly specific though. The corpse inside you can't just be dead, it can't just be decomposing, the fragments of putrefying corpse matter must be coursing through your blood at a sufficient concentration before anything can legally be done.
I think it's because it's stupid looking enough that the brain doesn't even classify it as a vehicle, it's just some weird contraption that isn't supposed to act like a vehicle does, so it's an uncanny valley effect.
It's also why they're opposed to lead pipe removal. They'll never admit it, but lead poisoning is a major contributor to why people are stupid enough to vote for them.
The worrying part is the implications of what they're claiming to sell. They're selling an imagined future in which there exists a class of sapient beings with no legal rights that corporations can freely enslave. How far that is from the reality of the tech doesn't matter, it's absolutely horrifying that this is something the ruling class wants enough to invest billions of dollars just for the chance of fantasizing about it.
90 F to Kelvin, halved and converted back, is approximately -190.
It's difficult to find data on what exposure to that temperature would do, the threshold for an extreme cold warning (meaning absolutely do not go outside without heavy protection unless you want necrotic frostbite) is about 150 F warmer than that.
Oh, of course, doing that would be highly irrational. Asinine, even. Only a complete fucking idiot would do it. But you remember who we're talking about, right?
Privacy regulations are to the left of the Overton window. The idea that corporations don't have some divinely ordained ownership of our personal data is unthinkably radical.
Kicking is our natural unarmed attack. Still a last resort compared to throwing rocks or whacking with sticks though. We evolved from ancestors who already used tools to defend themselves.
They're the only ones left on that dumpster fire. Angry divorced cops, crypto scammers, propaganda bots, and the occasional normal person holding out in hopes that it'll blow over (it won't).
This is what's called sophistry. The current system is the second least democratic option possible. There are countless ways to make it better and only one way to make it worse. So why, if you're truly asking in good faith, fixate on the one way to make it worse as the only possible change?