Without shard physics-breaking shennaningans, dragonfly of prehistorical size could not live and fly in current atmosphere, with much smaller amount of oxygen in the air, as compared to (some of) prehistory.
While it is true that the lower levels of oxygen in the atmosphere are a major contributor to why insects are so small, it is almost certainly not the only one.
If the atmosphere has an isue with Taylor's dragonfly size then the atmosphere is welcometo file a complaint and make an appointment to see Taylor and state its case.
May I also remind my right honourable friend that these are not shard shenanigans and her shard is not aware how Taylor accomplishes her Taylor shenanigans.
Oxygen levels may have played a major role, as I said, but another big contributor to their smaller size is probably due to the fact that global temperatures cooled a great deal since the Triassic (which is when Dragonflies evolved). And without specific adaptations, insects are even more poorly suited to handling cooler temperatures than cold blooded animals. Getting smaller also meant that they could better regulate their own body temperatures.
Then you have other complexities, like competition within an ecological niche as well, which forces a species to either adapt or go extinct.
I think it's more an invitation to get shat on at a great height, given that Vicky is airborne...
Said shipping exec's will have far too much to worry about elsewhere in their lives rather soon. Sure, there is the soon to exist Federal case against them (which should be a concern for them given that in the US, I've heard, federal cases have a 98%+ success rate), but that will just be (in their minds) some financial penalties they negotiate down and land all the blame on the retired and expired exec's that don't work there anymore (definitely not them, no sir).
No their fate is going to be much worse as soon as their insurers get even the merest hint that the claim for the tanker in Brockton Bay is fraudulent. Their lawyers will be far less forgiving - especially since civil case do not have the same standards of proof as criminal cases. Even worse though is this little tidbit... Those of us who have ever taken out an insurance policy will all recall such fun questions as "Have you ever been denied insurance previously?" or "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" (bonus points if that offence was fraud of course).
This is where their problems are truly going to begin. If their insurers have reason to suspect they have made a fraudulent claim the past, several things will happen. First any claim they have made will be re-investigated extremely closely, which is annoying, but any irregularities will likely come to light (do we think BB is the only time they have been engaged in shady activities?). Their corporate insurance premiums will skyrocket - assuming they can even obtain a policy anyone after this. More directly ships that cannot obtain insurance will be a risk to operate and subjected to much tighter scrutiny from officials - and of course the liability if an uninsured ship breaks something (or has something that breaks internally).
The insurance investigation will quite possibly identify a number of individual executives who were probably responsible. They may find it rather challenging (and very expensive) to get any personal insurance after that and even be functionally unemployable if their culpability is deemed high enough - "I'm sorry company XYZ, you seem to have employed John Doe from ABC shipping and we consider them to be a significant insurance risk, that's why your corporate premiums have tripled...".
It will be hard to avoid as well as the number of insurance underwriters in the world is rather small and they rely on acturial data, not just criminal convictions to make their decision about policy offerings. They will absolutely believe their statistics over a lawyer, no matter how shark-like they are.
And while I'm sure those exec's and owners have friends in insurance (how else did the policy on the tanker in BB get paid out so quickly), that wont really help them when the underwriters work out whats happened. Insurers are infamous for not wanting to make payouts and take fraud extremely seriously.
The reason Federal cases have such a high success rate is much like why Non-Federal cases have a high success rate, most people don't fight the case and try to settle it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Especially as the Federal Government tends to be
very thorough in its investigation when building a case. And not fighting it means you can either plea down the penalty, or simply
not get the maximum legal penalty invoked, which is much more likely if you decide to fight it.
And they are being
very optimistic if they think its going to be merely some financial penalties, as the investigation is going to show a pattern of malfeasance involved here, which even if its only the first time they have been caught on it and nothing else is involved, tends to make the penalties more severe and not
just financial. For the Execs, this is going to be
painful in the extreme, even if they don't end up with jail time or even a conviction.
For their companies, the insurance bit is going to be the painful part, which the probable new execs are going to have to deal with. And as you have noted, any execs who aren't getting a stay at Club Fed at the taxpayers expense, are going to find that they are likely to quickly find themselves not only out of a job, but likely won't be able to get a new job as they are radioactive to various businesses.
And yeah, most insurers won't touch someone who has provably committed fraud. Of course, the hard part is often
proving the fraud with empirical data, which is why maritime insurance is so notorious for fraud. It's not that they don't know that fraud is happening, it is that it can be damn hard to
prove that fraud was the case in a specific instance even when they know it was the case (when they weren't complicit in it themselves, that is).