This is depressing v.05

The expansion of the definition of negligence is depressing, say

The management was responsible for negligence if they let a slippery floor without warning or unattended. Ok... Should then the management still be responsible for not warning the people that the warning sign still was relevant even after it had been displayed since yesterday?

The government was responsible for negligence by not specifying whether the company's portion of insurance was a part or was not a part of fixed allowance included in minimum wage, alas the minimum wage payments were reduced for not only insurance but also tax gross ups. Should the government paid back everything that they had been accused of? Or the Government only should update the law? Or actually the law already works well and it's just a part of the grand scheme of things, without anyone noticing it...

Some artists were mad that their music containing samples of other musicians' tunes, were used without permission. They didn't specify that they had asked for the permission for the tunes though, so were they entitled for compensations by the user?

To what extent should you exercise duty of care? In the world of innuendos there were no lines, no boundaries, no limitations articulated.

---

The lack of growth is subject to "Increase in entropy", 

"Increase in entropy" is subject to future collapse

Reliance in foundations bound to collapse leads to depression.

Mass reliance in collapsing assets would be massively depressing.

So instead of some instant, immidiate "care" that paid no attention to the underlying nature of the problems, we should expand our fortification against depression early, by setting up clear expectations of one's rights and responsibilities.