I generally follow the rules unless I have a reason not to. The rationale is that just because I don't see the reason for the rule doesn't mean there isn't one. If everyone ignored every rule they didn't understand the need for the world would be even more of a shit show.
So I stop at the stop sign when no one is around. I know I would only do it when it was safe, but so does everyone who got hit by a car running a stop sign at a blind corner in the middle of the night.

I'm definitely asking about it if it's the least bit inconvenient though.

Eh, "did you ask to download something" is about the line where I would draw acceptability. You cannot use a website without them knowing if you made a download request for the content so I'm not bothered by them paying attention to the data to see what I downloaded.
It's when you start sharing the data with others, or using that data from others, or adding things to collect information and send it back that I mind.

If someone did everything on the up and up, they would see my browser request, information that says what it can do that the browser opts to send, and a cookie that identifies the browsing session.
I'm fine with that because I can clear it or change it at will, and without sharing anything the capability information is less useful than the session cookie.

Entirely depends on the group. I've been in meetings with developers where we agreed it was creepy and pushed back. I've also been in meetings with marketing where they said it was normal, and meetings with others who said it was the cost the user paid to use our website. Ignoring of course that we sold stuff on the website, and that part of it was a management system that the users actually paid us money to use.

They stopped giving me those projects, which was a win for me but arguably a loss for the users.

I did though for a bit convince people that it was worthwhile to fix the accept/reject not working right, but that it wasn't a top priority to fix the reject button disabling tracking for all users of the site for the duration of the cookie. (Cookie stored "be creepy" flag. When the user clicked the button it stored a flag in the session so we could statistics, and then read the flag to set the cookie. Someone used the wrong session value and stuck it in the global store used to cache sitewide data, so when it went to see if they opted out it would see if anyone had in the last month. They fixed it after the data was all fucky for a few months and they realized my argument of "who would opt out? It's just the way the Internet works" was extremely wrong and no one will ever complain about being opted out of tracking)

Your points are correct but I disagree with your conclusion. It's not deciding that some people will be sacrificed (also a bit extreme of a word choice for feeling put out by discussions of a demographic you belong to), it changing the proportion of people sacrificed in the hopes of reducing the number of people raped. The shift is away from teaching women that it's all on them. Their fault or their responsibility. Objecting when the balance changes says that it's not sacrifice you object to, but it being men. "The status quo is better than the cost of fixing it".

When you ask why men should support anti rape education if it makes them feel bad, the answer is supposed to be "because they understand rape is worse than the cognitive discomfort of discussing awful things people like them did".

I don't get the impression that that's what they're saying.
I get the impression that they agree, but that it's literally the quoting of crime statistics to highlight a problem that feels bad to them.

Which I can understand. It invites quibbling over statistics and somehow distances you from the point being made because it highlights a pattern but leaves the conclusion up to the listener.

This in no way speaks against the statistic, the conclusion or the problem. Just commiserating that statistics have been used to mislead so often that it can feel bad to use them, even if entirely justified.

I take it you don't regularly check things that are already configured for spontaneous changes?

Or do you think it's ridiculous that we would expect restaurants to do that for services they potentially never signed up for?

Why do you say that? They're saying what they'll have delivered to you.

Anyway,you can just Google it.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/food-drink/anti-doordash-restaurants-phoenix-fnb-carlys-bistro-hana-japanese-eatery-11537214/

That was one of the first results.

[DoorDash spokesperson] McCormack says that DoorDash has recently stopped listing businesses without permission and offered an official DoorDash statement. “While the majority of the merchants on our platform have partnerships with us, we will occasionally offer to act as a courier service for customers to restaurants in their neighborhood,” the statement reads. “For those not interested in being on DoorDash for any reason, we remove them from the platform upon their request.”

I honestly thought that it was common knowledge that they did that.

How often should they be checking the listing they put up hasn't been changed without their knowledge in a way that they were never told to expect?

When was the last time you checked that the numbers on your driver's license hadn't changed? Or are you one of those irresponsible people who doesn't check their important documents for spontaneous manifestation of clerical errors?

Sometimes the restaurant didn't even put the item on their menu. The website decided to "fill in" what was "missing" from the menu. It's how some restaurants discover all sorts of things they didn't know they sold. Sometimes from a service they never even signed up for!

One thing I like about modern phones is that you can get to the emergency number from the lock screen or by hitting the power button a bunch quickly (depending on phone and settings), so it's easy for an individual to get a 911 call going and on speakerphone without delaying anything else.

You are correct, it was a lazy-ish shortcut on my part.
The sooner a defibrillator can be used to induce the hearts electrical rhythm to resume ordered behavior and allow meaningful contractions to pump blood, the better.

Even more succinctly: YELL 911 AED CPR GOGOGO

The AED can only reset electric rythyms. Not every source of not having a pulse is due to chaotic electrical rhythm, not every electrical issue has a lack of pulse. "Stopped" and "restart" are ambiguous. I would generally forgive the usage of "not working" and "make start working" from anyone less trained than an EMT.

That's not the case.

1. people round numbers. In a casual setting 8 minutes and 10 minutes are the same.
2. 10 minutes without detectable vital signs is survivable, albeit extremely serious.
3. If you have sudden cardiac arrest and get CPR from a random bystander you have a 20% chance of surviving to leave the hospital. The sooner a defibrillator can restart the heart the better.
4. I'm not sure why you say they should have still had vitals with a heart attack. Most heart attacks don't leave you with none, but it's not all by any means. Lack of blood flow to the heart can easily cause it to stop beating.

Ultimately though, the part that matters is that the part you found implausible was the medical details, not that someone would go back to work shortly after a severe emergency while still concerned about their own sudden death because they can't afford to recover.