“growing questions” this, “demands proof of life” that, all of that is meaningless. Either declare him dead and issue the writs of election or he shows his face in public.

You’re going to have to be more specific about what you mean by people using the data of a dead person to commit fraud. Upon death, a person’s identity documents, identity numbers, and other legal identifiers will deactivate and can no longer be used.

Social media accounts of the dead person can be tagged with a flag that notifies viewers that the subject is deceased.

Deleting a dead person’s information so that their social media profile’s contents can’t be copied to a new account masquerading as them does nothing, because them being dead is immaterial to fraudsters being able to copy their profile’s contents.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of ANPRs (automatic number plate recognition) as these are called in the rest of the world. It’s more of an issue that there is a complete lack of laws surrounding how that data is to be used, and especially when it’s controlled by a private company. If there were strict laws limiting the situations where ANPRs could be used, such as requiring a warrant to begin searching for plate numbers and automatically discarding data from non-matching plates, I doubt people would complain as much about these.

It’s from a YouTube video (linked by the other reply) which discusses the mathematics of traffic flow modelled with linear differential equations using Newtonian physics and the optimal way to program AI drivers to reduce congestion. The video was made by a German.

It is intended to symbolise an excessively over-engineered solution to a problem, which is a common stereotype of German engineering.

Yes, electric cars are exempt from the registration games. But with China’s huge population, even if 80% of the city takes public transportation, that 20% who choose to drive still have enough cars to jam up the roads so they come up with these kinds of schemes to reduce traffic.

Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.

I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.

Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.

It’s a great example of how morality is relative.

I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.

So far, in the cases which have actually run to completion in the ICC, they have been about crimes committed in countries with weak or non-functional judiciaries. This, I would assume, is the court’s primary purpose.

Your assertion that the ICC Prosecutor is obligated to respect the decision of a state party’s procuratorial authority to not prosecute seems unsupported by the text of the Rome Statute. Article 20, Section 3 of the Statute only precludes the ICC from trying offences which have been fairly and impartially tried in another court. The key here, is that the accused must have actually been tried. A decision not to prosecute by local prosecutors does not prevent the ICC Prosecutor’s Office from pressing charges.

I do, however, agree for the most part that the United States can avoid the issue with respect to its own citizens by simply prosecuting all the possible crimes domestically in American courts, which would remove the jurisdiction of the ICC, averting all the nasty due process violation concerns. The US can accede with a reservation that all crimes involving US citizens will instead first be referred to the US Department of Justice for local prosecution, and then domestic legislation can force the Department of Justice to at least put some effort into a prosecution to satisfy the requirements of Article 20, Section 3 and foreclose ICC jurisdiction.

There are also some arguments about how the US being obligated to arrest visiting foreign heads of state or government with active warrants against them would be detrimental to the general peace-building process, but I don’t agree with this interpretation. Article 98 of the Rome Statute states that state parties are not required to extradite in violation of other obligations of international law, presumably including diplomatic immunity.

So yes, I agree that it is a weak argument for not adopting the Rome Statute. To be clear, I think the real reason the US did not ratify the Rome Statute is because the US military has its fingers in so many pies that it’s inevitable that some criminal conduct has occurred somewhere, but having even a single US service member appear before an international war crimes tribunal would be geopolitically embarrassing, especially since neither of the two other contemporary world powers subject themselves to ICC jurisdiction.

At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.

The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.

This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.

So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.

That’s the end of the argument.

To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.

Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.

I will be honest, the genuine reservations voiced about the ICC and the due process problems are legitimate. I don’t agree that they outweigh the benefits of joining the ICC, but I do understand that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.

For one, ICC proceedings take years and there is no right to a fast trial. Article 67 of the Rome Statute gives the defendant a right against “undue delay” but this clause is essentially toilet paper in reality. A defendant can spend years in detention awaiting a resolution to their case, even if they are later acquitted and released (which has happened).

For comparison only, there is a right to a speedy trial in American law. If exercised, this usually results in a trial scheduled in mere weeks, at most a month or two for complex cases.

If the ICC is known for anything, it’s the completely broken pre-trial process.

After the next presidential election, the US should accede to Rome Statue and dump this loser on the steps of the ICC. Might as well nab Bibi as well, Maduro-style.

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.

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.

Link to full text of ruling (PDF)

Interesting idea, impossible to implement without creating problems ten times worse.

I guess that makes sense. If Oman can get a cut of the money while Iran takes the heat for tolling the strait then I would see that being an attractive deal for Oman.