NotAnonymousAtAll

Many people do, but there are legitimate concerns about

1. if an invasion could even actually achieve this,
2. the humanitarian cost of it (aka A LOT of innocent people dying or losing everything),
3. the long term effects of destabilizing a whole region and
4. the damage to the rules based global order caused by yet another war of aggression from a side that is supposed to support and not undermine that order.

"Bad things existed before, so we should not criticize them still existing today" is not a very strong argument.

Ich hab's jetzt erst gesehen, fand's aber im Rückblick durchaus witzig.

Wettpool:

Ich setze 100 € auf "Kein einziger Beamter oder Politiker wird wegen der Aktion irgendwelche negativen Konsequenzen zu spüren bekommen, selbst wenn sie im Nachgang als rechtswidrig eingeordnet werden sollte". Aus praktischen Gründen begrenzt auf 12 Monate ab jetzt. Wer hält dagegen?

Don't let the fact that this comes as a surprise to absolutely no one detract from the importance of reporting on it anyway.

The design goal was to avoid people just leaving it plugged in because that is more convenient and that then showing up on photos. Can't have something as trivial as real life day to day usability ruin your image of minimalism.

Cambridge Analytica was not enough of a reason to leave Facebook for me, because at that point I had already stopped actively using the site a long time ago and deleting my effectively inactive account seemed like a lot of effort for very little practical purpose.

This article (or just the headline to be honest) was finally enough to push me to actually go through with logging in one last time to finally get rid of it.

Yet here we all are, having put effort that was not strictly required into being principled about something. Otherwise we would still be over there.

why can they just sue someone for refusing to buy something

From the article:

As part of the agreements, the Chinese fund granted the remaining minority shareholders an option to require it to purchase their remaining shares for about $9.5 million, now valued at roughly $11 million, by early December 2025.

especially when buying it would be illegal

Legality in country A is completely irrelevant for suing someone in country B.

Also, in many countries having a realistic chance of winning the case is not a prerequisite to suing anyone for anything.

Woher soll der Wasserstoff dafür kommen? Genauer:

1. Wie kommt der Wasserstoff zur Anlage? Lässt sich bestehende Infrastruktur dafür umrüsten oder müsste die komplett neu errichtet werden?

2. Wie wird der Wasserstoff produziert? Vermutlich mit hohem Stromverbrauch nehme ich an. Und soll das tatsächlich effizienter sein als den Strom direkt zum Heizen zu nutzen, ggf kombiniert mit einer Batterie zur Pufferung?

All ownership is inherently backed by violence. If someone wants to take away your things without giving anything back you either give up ownership or use (the threat of) violence to defend your ownership. That threat of violence might be deferred and abstracted to a legal system, but in the end it is all rooted in force.

If France was smart, they would have emigrated to JitsiMeet or Jami already.

And then they would force you to use one of those, so your original argument "State forced == bad" still does not make any sense.

Not saying you are wrong about JitsiMeet or Jami being better choices, but that just wasn't part of your original argument even with a very generous interpretation.