News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google's CFO Ruth Porat is pushing “creatives” to bring c... by lfam on Saturday September 17, 2016 @10:19PM (#12523613)
$2 million (or whatever number) may be the standard rate used to compensate others for a lost life, but does anyone willingly sell their life for $2 million?

I think there is a difference between how we try to compensate for the loss of something irreplaceable (a life) or disincentive negligence, and the price of something bought and sold.

Re:Google's CFO Ruth Porat is pushing “creatives” to bring c... by sa46 on Saturday September 17, 2016 @10:43PM (#12523692)
Isn't life insurance fraud by suicide selling your life for a chance at money, usually much less than $2 million?
Re:Google's CFO Ruth Porat is pushing “creatives” to bring c... by jonathankoren on Saturday September 17, 2016 @11:10PM (#12523755)
Obviously not, because you're not dead.
Re:Google's CFO Ruth Porat is pushing “creatives” to bring c... by mvid on Sunday September 18, 2016 @05:22AM (#12524562)
Life insurance fraud of killing yourself and making it look like it wasn't a suicide in order for your beneficiaries to get the payout. You would very much be dead.
Re:Google's CFO Ruth Porat is pushing “creatives” to bring c... by majewsky on Sunday September 18, 2016 @10:05AM (#12525339)
Okay, let me assume that this is even a thing (I don't know, but you seem to). There are still two fallacies in trying to equate the lost life against the payout:

1. The person committing the suicide and thus the fraud would not be weighing his life against the money, he would be considering the well-being of his beneficiaries instead, and deciding that their well-being is worth more than his life.

2. He cannot reasonably control the payout of the life insurance. Anything beyond a certain mark (maybe 2 million $) would raise a lot of eyebrows in the insurance company.