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.

It is unreasonable to expect a state to allow each and every citizen to pick and chose which program to use when communicating with them even if just a single person is involved. As soon as multiple people are supposed to all be in the same virtual room it is effectively impossible.

So what happened here is that the state changed which program(s) it "forces" you to use. Do you have a more specific point about why domestic options are supposed to be worse for that than the ones from U.S. Big Tech companies? Because if not, you don't have a point at all.

If you are anti-anti-fa, that means you are fa. Do I need to spell it our more explicitly than that?

The hard part of software development is not the coding. The hard part is coming up with something actionable, reasonably well defined, internally consistent and technically possible from limited bits and pieces of information, more often than not all of them vague and contradictory; and they change if you ask the same stakeholder again a day later.

I don't see that part getting replaced by AI any time soon.

Erst wollte ich "Tja" kommentieren, aber es geht hier darum, dass der Bundesinnenminister gezielt die Judikative ignoriert und niemand in der Bundesregierung dagegen öffentlich etwas sagt. Das ist ein handfester Skandal, und dass es von den Medien in der Breite nicht als solcher behandelt wird ist nochmal ein zweiter Skandal obendrauf.

Das ist kein Fall für ein einfaches "Tja". Das verlangt Empörung.

Scheißminister! Ich will wieder eine Regierung die Rechtstaatlichkeit nicht als unverbindliche Empfehlung behandelt.

As a mostly straight dude who does not score high on conventional physical attractiveness I encourage absolutely everyone independent of their gender to hit on me. Being told/signaled that I am attractive is always welcome.

Just don't blatantly ignore boundaries like physical touch without explicit consent. That too applies completely independent of gender.

He wants to say "They didn't help us" later much more than he wants help now.

TL;DR: The USB Implementers Forum is ridiculously bad at naming, symbols and communication in general. (And they don't seriously enforce any of this anyway, so don't even bother learning it.)

Biden should give an executive order to lock this guy up for treason.

When people complain about that, point to the SCOTUS decision that the president can do whatever the fuck he wants without legal repercussions.

If any of the people who complain even vaguely hint at violence in reaction to this, give an order to lock them up for treason, too.

Keep this cycle going until the last grunt has understood that this type of behavior will not stand.

Once all the people willing to call for violence are locked up, use the same reasoning to disband the current SCOTUS and replace it with something that is not an embarrassment for a modern democracy, with a strong recommendation to immediately renounce the ruling that made all of that legal.

By the time the dust has settled Biden will be too old to be persecuted for any of that anyway.

I know none of this will happen, writing it out just as a happy little fantasy.