"We won't do x" and "We don't have a profit motive for x" are not the same statements.

"We won't do x" is not something Microsoft wrote in a document to anyone. Their lawyers aren't that stupid.

Yeah, and? Did you actually read any of that or the article I linked?

What it says and what OP said are not the same thing.

It's almost like those are two separate statements and not what the OP said.

The article I link literally quotes Microsoft's statement you are referencing. I didn't say otherwise.

To reach the asteroid you would have to match it's vector and speed at which point your space craft is already on an escape trajectory and doesn't need the asteroid to leave the solar system.

Who are you talking about? Nobody is supporting publishers here.

They didn't tell courts (or anyone) that they wouldn't make future Bethesda titles exclusive.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/did-microsoft-break-its-promise-to-the-eu-about-bethesda-exclusives-for-the-record

You can't argue with logic against willful ignorance. That wasn't a scientific argument.

As for factual evidence, go outside and look up.

Edit: reading OPs other replies, I think they are the "friend" in this scenario and looking for ways to convince others we live in hollow earth.

Good news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Case in point, all the comments here defending the company and saying the ruling is incorrect.

That wouldn't invalidate the coverage. As long as you can show your company and employees have policies and procedures in place and are being followed your claim will be approved.

Source: personal experience making a claim on a cybersecurity policy.

I'm glad you're not a Judge as they made the correct ruling here. The company did not have breach insurance.

This is covered under separate breach policies and it's common. I work for a financial institution and we carry breach insurance for this reason. It's essentially a requirement.

They didn't have a breach policy, and weren't covered.

You didn't answer the question. To add, what is ambiguous about "direct physical damage"?

This is why you have breach insurance that includes a ransomware policy.

The appellate court was the one that made an absurd ruling on the level of "it's a series of tubes". Ransomware or any other loss of data does not constitute physical loss or damage.

The German government has a terrible track record on energy sources.

> I already gave you the short explanation

Got it. You have no clue what your talking about and are deflecting. "You're behind the times" is not an explanation. I'm done here.

EDIT: /u/ersatzgiraffe I have to edit to respond due to user blocking:

There are plenty of uses for hydrogen and this sounds like a much better way to produce it at first glance. My point wasn't that hydrogen is bad, just that it's a bad for electrical storage and passenger vehicles.

How so?

Your link is paywalled and if you can't explain it yourself you don't actually know what it says anyway.

Flywheels, pumped hydro, batteries, and compressed air are all superior storage methods to hydrogen.

Hydrogen also cannot use the existing pipeline infrastructure. For that synthetic methane would work while being more efficient and actually cleaner than most hydrogen sources.

Doesn't matter how efficient your hydrogen power plant is. Producing the hydrogen itself is extremely inefficient. It requires massive amounts of power.

There are far better storage options for power than hydrogen. Hydrogen has it's uses, but electricity generation and passenger vehicles aren't it.

Great for generating electricity. Not so great for planes.

The head mod spent years trying to keep the $500 million cost of SLS on the Wikipedia page with edit wars despite solid references at the time it was $2+ billion. We now know it's $4+ billion.

Excluding Orion.

It's worrisome anyone believes this constitutes a limit of free speech.