Okay, so there’s a principle in law, which is that one calls a document by the thing it purports to be. If it is not valid, you prepend “purported” in the contexts where it would be ambiguous otherwise, and explain your reasons as to why and the readers will know what you’re trying to say. You do not play word games with finding creative and insulting things to call it.
This is what the judge ordered:
The Parties are prohibited from referring to the purported “settlement agreement,” or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in this matter, Case No. 26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. 2026).63 “Plaintiffs” means the named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit: President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, the Trump Organization, LLC and includes any of their agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other person acting in concert with the party or under the party’s control, whether directly or indirectly. “Defendants” means the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of the Treasury.
This order doesn’t seem to explicit prohibit the parties from following the terms of the settlement. Merely that the settlement is not to be spoken of again in court.
There are two other orders. One of them is to issue a disciplinary referral against Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar. This is the court telling the bar association that they strongly believe the lawyer in question has committed a violation of ethical rules. However, I frankly do not find it particularly likely that the Florida Bar will act strongly on this referral, though I’m open to being surprised. The second order is to ban Trump lawyer Daniel Epstein from filing any more applications for pro hac vice in the Southern District of Florida. A pro hac vice application is a tool used to request permission from a court to represent someone for one case only when the lawyer in question doesn’t have a valid licence to practise in the state where the case is being conducted.
The Nintendo Switch was just taken offline in Mainland China, not that it was terribly popular anyway, because it only had around 10 games available for it.
The video game market in China has essentially been dominated by a company called Tencent for years, who are known for poor customer experiences and frustrating software. The Chinese were enshittifying online services years before the word “enshittify” was coined.
The old owners could’ve been fined into bankruptcy and then the franchise was sold to someone else.
There was a filling station in my town which was also significantly cheaper. About 40-50 cents less than nearby stations. I used it for years but also wondered how it was so cheap. Then one day, I went there and the price had gone up from the bargain of a decade to merely reasonable. I was wondering why but then I noticed that someone had put a sticker next to the dispenser keypad that wasn’t there before: a fuel tax sticker. It’s required by law on all fuel pumps here but I guess I just never noticed that they just never had one there previously.
No points for guessing what happened lol
That’s okay, Microsoft can just have Copilot subscribe 40 million times to pad out the numbers.
I definitely think Google is guilty of what the Commission has accused them of here, but I also can’t help but think: if pre-installing Google Search and Chrome are anti-competitive, why is Apple not guilty of the same thing? In fact, I’d argue that Apple is ten times worse in this regard because you actually can’t use any browser but Safari on iOS (all other browser apps are actually just re-skins of Safari under the hood). Does being a vertically-integrated company excuse such behaviour?
Unlike 7-Zip, which is actually free and also open-source as well
7-Zip is by far the best archiving software on Windows
That doesn’t really do much, does it? Sure, you can get your revenge against those in charge, but all it does is create a power vacuum. And now instead of fighting one army, you’re fighting ten. Good luck even having a country after that. This is a lesson the Americans learn the hard way in the Middle East, over and over again.
Historically, untrained peasantry is no match for a professional army. I’m not saying arming the population is worthless, but the armed masses rising up against a non-figurative army of disciplined professional kills has essentially never panned out. That is a pipe dream, which, at least in my country, has historically been parroted by right-wing morons. They can make subduing them costly through guerilla tactics, but without regulars, it’s just not a winning proposition. Every successful revolution has trained up a professional army as soon as they could, armed with something a bit more uniform than “whatever weapons people happen to own”. The National Guard in France, the Red Army in Russia, the Continental Army in America, the People’s Liberation Army in China, literally no revolution succeeds by just having randos with guns overthrow the government. A revolution will need either resources and training from the outside, or a man on the inside who can turn the state’s resources against it. That is, respectively, (1) a civil war, or (2) a coup d’état.
The claims are already out of time. And Trump is only entitled to a few thousand dollars per occurrence anyway. If the IRS actually had reasonable lawyers representing them, they’d have settled this case for maybe $50,000. Ten billion dollars is a Dr. Evil-level demand.