I think there is a pretty marked difference between honesty and passivity that you’re conflating here.

For missing the job interview that passed you for a punctual interviewer - I think it’s fine to be honest in that situation but if it were me, I’d also blame myself for not leaving my house earlier to account for the traffic.

At the current job you could be honest AND active about standing up for yourself at work by providing evidence that you are one doing the work. There’s no rule that says you can advocate for yourself without being honest.

As for reporting the minor hit and run - maybe it’s because I live in a city, but if I wasn’t the person getting hit, and the person wasn’t injury beyond a scrape/bruise then I wouldn’t have reported it. Honest to god, not my problem. I would only do it if the victim decides to prosecute the driver/instigator and was asking to me to be the witness, I wouldn’t go out of my way to do it. Obviously if the scale of the accident was different - imagine something life threatening - then I would then report it, because then the person who caused the accident deserves to have consequences for their actions. And in that case even if I had to spend countless of hours in litigation, I would do it because it’s the right thing to do, not because I need to be rewarded or thanked for it.

I could keep going down the list, but I guess the main point is, rules are written for a reason, but rules were also written by humans. Intrinsically, that means they are sometimes flawed, and it’s a matter of using critical thinking and risk/reward assessment to determine when they should be followed or not.

ah my formatting didn’t work :'(

That’s a good question, actually so I looked it up and found a few articles talking about it.

“At full capacity, the Klamath River dams can produce enough electricity to power about 70,000 homes, though in reality, they produce about half that, says PacifiCorp spokesperson Bob Gravely. The reservoirs do not provide drinking or irrigation water.” Source

As for what the electricity would be replaced with, it would be from other sources that would are aggregated by the power company.

I actually think the research for this dam removal was done quite thoroughly after reading this article: [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a69884b685ef49bbba26f9a1d377cbe4](Link here)

Someone crunched the numbers and the dams were not efficient, aging and getting to be a liability so I believe the removal was an overall net positive