Given that the grid exists and power is sold on it now, it stands to reason that it can be done in an economically sound manner. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

While there may be information in this instance we don't have access to, on it's face there is no reason whatsoever to believe the datacenter knew what the customer was storing. They generally don't unless it is specifically pointed out.

Too many of these investigations are way too close to the old witch trial where they toss you in the river and if you drown you're innocent (but dead) and if you float you're a witch so they burn you. It's about as logical as seeing if they weigh the same as a duck.

Those things always have fuzzy lines. Most likely the standard would be if a reasonable person might expect the expenditure to further the goal (answer, yes). Buying a Ferrari for the CEO certainly is not but hiring a software developer for a product that needs software clearly is a reasonable step.

If it gives you some idea how liberally the courts interpret those things, look at the various boards paying huge salaries and 'performance' bonuses to CEOs during bad years that don't get buried in shareholder suits.

But not to stray too far from the point, that language and other notices in the FAQs that they are not a store tend to show that their intent is not to be a mail (or web) order business. In fact they specifically state that they are not.

By the same token, all it takes is one person seeing or just hearing about it going on a nostalgia trip and buying the set for their own kids to watch for it to benefit.

We're close. George Harrison was sued for 3 notes. What's worse, the case dragged on so many years and with ownership passed around so many times that by the time a verdict was reached, Harrison was both parties. Too bizarre to make it up!

You can do 3 drives /mirror to considerably reduce your risk. Even when you pull a drive for the vault, you still have a mirrored volume.

Why 6 times a day? Why would an industrial user care how many times a day as long as the duty cycle is adequate? Given the equal spacing of events, many of the low points in production would be in the middle of the night when demand is low.

If you'll note the terms I listed for residential a/c, that's potentially more than 6 a day.

In addition, when supply is high and local demand is low, they could always sell the excess.

You just proved you're one of those people who didn't read. I quote (same page, a couple graphs down from yours):

That's it for the remedies, make best effort, look for alternatives, say what went wrong and how the money was spent, and offer to return whatever is left. They've done all of that.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US MANY manufacturers make such arrangements with their power provider, including interruptable service that can go down at will.

They typically connect the interruptable feed to large freezers that can coast for days on thermal mass without harm. It is usually done to shave the peaks.

It's not that uncommon in datacenters. In that case, there are contractual limits on how often it can go down and how long at a time.

It's also fairly common for residential customers to agree to an interrupter on their A/C in exchange for a modest bit significant discount. Last time I saw an agreement for that, power could be cut for up to 30 minutes at a time with not less than 30 minutes power on following.

I'm sure all of the datacenter employees and the bankrupted owners as well as the many innocent customers whose internet operations evaporated overnight will find that deeply comforting as they try to figure out what to do for food, clothing, and shelter.

How about if the taxis have been picking up and dropping off nicely dressed people with briefcases full of drugs and money (that they never open in the cab)? Do we charge the drivers?

Is it fair to destroy the cab company and put all of its employees out of work digging around for evidence based on a vague suspicion that one or two drivers might have had an unvoiced suspicion?

I'm betting that when this all blows over, the datacenter will be bankrupt and tossed to the wolves.

Accepting the risk that it may never appear in stores or might cost more.

Actually it is. The people demanding a full refund either don't know that (because they didn't bother to read) or they DO know that but choose to act as if they don't.