Because of - how do you say corruption in English, ah yes - "lobbying".

Spoiler: the cure will involve massive and inevitable downgrade of standard of living for a huge portion of the global population.

My thought exactly. I guess there are also no differences in elbows or toes. Why would there be? It's not necessary to explain differences in behavior.
To continue the computer analogy at the end, remember that we probably have "software" (learned) and "firmware" (inherited), and both could explain the differences observed while running on similar "hardware".

Why is it depressing?

Your example is not valid because is uses action instead of non-action.

Let me rephrase your example to make it comparable: "The majority did not vote that lorinc has to pay 100% taxes and make breakfast for them. Consequently, I did not pay 100% and I didn't make you breakfast. Now a few people sue the government for failing to enact such a law". Isn't that just absurd?

If the procedure would have been about having enacted laws that result in being detrimental to a minority, of course I would have agree that it conflicts with the fairness principles (that have nothing to do with democracy) that govern most western states. But it's not the case. It's a procedure about not enacting laws that one was not elected for.

In a democracy, the sanction for not passing the bill the people want is to loose the next election. How does a judge decide that an elected body should have passed bills others than what was in its program? How is that a democratic?

I sincerely do not understand how that's possible without conflicting with core democratic principle. How can government be held responsible of not enacting laws the voters didn't voted for?

It tragedy of the commons, so long that the majority of the people does not care enough to put the environment as one of the first priority, I don't see how any legal action would not conflict with basic democracy. With the added backlash of making these voters even more pissed off by environmental concerns.

Yes.

If you're being paid primarily for searching the right snippet of code on stack overflow and then copy/paste it, I wonder how long you'll be paid before you'll be automated out of your job...

In 1995 maybe, not today. Paris to Nantes takes 2 hrs 15, from city center to city center. With a plane, it would take you 40 minutes to reach CGD from Paris city center, at the very least 30 minutes before your plane takes off (I'm being overly optimistic here), 1 hour flight (because of take off and landing, taxi, etc), finally 30 minutes from Nantes airport to Nantes city center (again very optimistic). That's a total of 2 hrs 40. I bet most of the time you're good for a 3 hrs 30 instead. It makes no sense to fly on this one.

However, airports in France - apart from CGD - are nothing like in the US, there not that far away from the city center, and easily accessible using a train of a bus in under 30 minutes. France is about the size of Texas, there's not much space to put the airports far away from cities. However, French trains are fast. 2 hrs 30 of French TGV would take you from Buffalo to Cincinnati, and I doubt driving would be a viable option in that case.

Air France was already forced to abandon these flights in exchange of a bailout. The new law is to make sure that other companies will not profit from the void left by Air France as that would have then nullified the effect on CO2 emission.

Price. Trains are expensive in France. Although I must admit this is is changing rapidly with additional taxes on CO2 emissions that increase the price of flying (that and airlines that need cash due to the pandemic).

Also, 2 hrs 30 by train takes you pretty far in France (compared to the size of the country). Several high speed rails have opened in the past 3-4 years that dramatically cut the time to travel to some places. For example, Paris to Bordeaux is about 600 km and takes only 2 hrs 10 by train now. So I suspect this flight would have slowly become obsolete anyway, but old habits die hard.
In comparison Paris to Toulouse is about 650 km (so not much more) and takes more than 6 hrs by train due to the absence of high speed rail.

It's a good move:
- If the FSF does nothing, Red Hat get its money back and can use it to lobby for its business practice, while the FSF looses some lobbying power because of that canceled funding.
- If Stallman resigns or other board members resign, Red Hat can push its corporate member to the board and lobby for its business practice withing the FSF.
Either way, they appear as the white knight, and the FSF has no good move.

But the FSF has a history of having to deal with no good move situations and they survived. Maybe the idea of free software is more resilient than business politics.

That sounds like a parodic black metal song:

When it's cold
And when It's dark
The frigid moon
Can ignore you...

And the same story repeated itself 10 years later with Stephen Elop and Nokia.

Fool me once...