Not really relevant. Microsoft has control over the data and can produce it if it wishes. It can't hide behind corporate forms.

Then Microsoft is screwed. In the meantime, Microsoft has access to the data and must provide it. They don't get get to pretend their subsidiary is not under their control.

As a lawyer, let me assure you that plenty of countries have laws/ruling that let them compel persons under their jurisdiction, including specifically companies incorporated under their laws, to take specified actions in other countries.

And the government's answer is "no, bring us your data or we freeze your assets and hold your US-based management in jail until you produce it."

No, it's not as simple as that. Servers and data fundamentally obey those rules more easily than ANY OTHER THING ON EARTH.

What was wrong with the existing legal remedies?

"...reinserts it back into your searches"...at the top of the page.

Sorry but you have to be pedantic when gathering requirements.

Nothing against a utility promoting itself by pointing out what it has achived, such things do need community support. However promoting the current CEO is clearly a form of political advertising for the benifit of the CEO, not the utlility. The full amount should be recovered from the CEO, after he is sacked for (legalised) embezzlement.

Nothing wrong with subsidies provided everyone is subsidised equally. Subsidising FF and renewables is not the same thing, FF are already have a huge subsidy in that it costs nothing to pollute the commons. Any moron can construct a free market via regulation, the hard part is constructing one that doesn't eventually kill us with our own greed.

Fact checking is good advice, you ought to try it sometime.

An incompetent comedian blames his audience.

"Universe" = everything.
"universe" = everything observable.

But that grammatical rule breaks down if you put the word at the start of a sentence.

Probably wouldn't work with my dog, it would just eat the rubber band.

Yeah, confused the hell out of me too the first time I heard it back in the 80's. If you search the "starts with a bang" website you'll find a well written article that explains why. Oh and 46 is the radius from our POV, so it's actually 92 "across".

Objects cannot move relative to each other faster than light but the space between them has no such restriction. Hyper Inflation lasted until the universe was about the size of a basketball. The big bang didn't end with (hyper) inflation, it is still happening and the universe is still inflating. The boundary to our modern universe is expanding away from us at the speed of light. So, two observers on opposite sides of our visible universe will be speeding away from each other faster than light. Only an observer in our position can see that the two observers at the opposite "edges" existing simultaneously.

Big fan of Starts with a Bang for many years, I must ask Ethan why cosmologists have ruled out the idea that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims Einstein's equations can be interpreted to mean there is a different universe inside a black hole but he doesn't elaborate. If anyone else knows of a good reason as to why our universe can't be the interior of a black hole then I'd love to hear it.